^■^. ' 






^ ^""^ ?fmi^ 



S- "'•t 


















r*> 



'^'o ..N 



.;<. - ,^^\. 






-J%^^ 



%^ 'V ^ 



%l<^ 



'S. 



^■ 






9 1 A 












,^-> '''t. 









A^ 



V 



"e- '..-%^;...,„%*-°\n^ 



.*• 



\%^- 



',"%S:0-\ 



: '^ 



></■ 






' ^^ 






-**.^ 



'^^^ 



"^/- v*^ 






.<!> ''*, 



':. .^' 



v\-- ^/-. 







o* 






>>*■ 


^ 


4 




x^' 


■p. 








O'^ 



.A^ 



UX^, ixy^ 7i'l^;m>-€c^.— w ,jp^^-- 



MY RELIGION". 



BY 

COUNT LEO TOLSTOI. 



TRANSLATED FROM THE FRENCH. 



NEW YORK: 

THOMAS Y. CKOWELL & CO. 

13 AsTOR Place. 






Copyright by 

Thomas Y. Ckowell & Co., 

1885. 






TEANSLATOE'S PEEFACE. 



TO one not familiar with the Russian language 
the accessible data relative to the external life 
of Leo Nikolaevich Tolstoi, the author of this book, 
are, to say the least, not voluminous. His name does 
not appear in that heterogeneous record of celebrities 
known as The 3fen of the Time, nor is it to be found 
in M. Vapereau's comprehensive Dictionnaire des 
Contemporains. And yet Count Leo Tolstoi is 
acknowledged by competent critics to be a man of 
extraordinary genius, who, certainlj' in one instance, 
has produced a masterpiece of literature which will 
continue to rank with the great artistic productions 
of this age. 

Perhaps it is enough for us to know that he was 
born on his father's estate in the Russian province 
of Tula, in the year 1828 ; that he received a good 
home education and studied the oriental languages 
at the University of Kasan ; that he was for a time 
in the army, which he entered at the age of twenty- 
three as an officer of artillery, serving later on the 
staff of Prince Gortschakof ; and that subsequently 
he alternated between St. Petersburg and Moscow, 
leading the existence of super-refined barbarism 



iv TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE. 

and excessive luxury, characteristic of the Rus- 
sian aristocracy. He saw life in country and 
city, in camp and court. He was numbered among 
the defenders of Sebastopol in the Crimean War, 
and the impressions then gathered he used as 
material for a series of War Sketches that attracted 
attention in the pages of the magazine where 
they first appeared ; and when, a little later, they 
were published in book form, their author, then 
twent3'-eight years of age, acquired at once a wide 
popularity. Popularity became fame with the pub- 
lication, also in 1856, of Childhood and Youth, 
remarkable alike for its artless revelations concern- 
ing the genesis and growth of ideas and emotions in 
the minds of the young, for its idyllic pictures of 
domestic life, and for its graceful descriptions of 
nature. This was followed by T7ie Cossacks, a 
wild romance of the steppes, vigorously realistic in 
details, and, like all of Count Tolstoi's works, 
poetic in conception and inspired with a dramatic 
intensity. In 1860 appeared War and Peace, an 
historical romance in many volumes, dealing with 
the Napoleonic invasion of 1812 and the events that 
immediately followed the retreat from Moscow. 
According to M. C. Courriere,^ it was seized upon 
with avidity and produced a profound sensation. 

"The stage is immense and the actors are innu- 
merable ; among them three emperors with their 
ministers, their marshals, and their generals, and 
then a countless retinue of minor officers, sol- 
1 Histoire de la litterature contemporaine en Russie. 



TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE. V 

fliers, nobles, and peasants. We are transported 
by turns from the salons of St. Petersburg to the 
camps of war, from Moscow to the country. And 
all these diverse and varied scenes are joined 
together with a controlling purpose that brings every- 
thing into harmony. Each one of the prolonged 
series of constantly changing tableaux is of remark- 
able beauty and palpitating with life." 

Pierre Besushkof, one of the three heroes of War 
and Peace, has, rightly or wrongly, long been 
regarded as in some respects an autobiographical 
study, but the personal note is always clearly per- 
ceptible in Count Tolstoi's writings, if we are to 
believe the reports of the enthusiastic purveyors of 
literary information who have made known some of 
their many attractive qualities. It is plain also that 
a common purpose runs through them all, a purpose 
which only in the author's latest production finds 
full expression. There are hints of it in Childhood 
and Youth; in War and Peace, and in a subsequent 
romance, Anna Karenin, it becomes ver}^ distinct. 
In the two works last named Count Tolstoi is piti- 
less in his portrayal of the vices and follies of the 
wealthy, aristocratic class, and warm in his praise of 
simplicity and unpretending virtue. Pierre Besush- 
kof is represented as the product of a transition 
period, one who sees clearly that the future must be 
different from the past, but unable to interpret the 
prophecies of its coming. M. Courri^re speaks of 
him very happily as "an overgrown child who seems 
to be lost in a wholly unfamiliar world." For a 



Vi TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE. 

time Pierre finds mental tranquillity in the tenets of 
freemasonry, and the author gives us a viyid 
account, humorous and pathetic by tui-ns, of the 
young man's efforts to carry the newly acquired doc- 
trines into practice. He determines to better the 
condition of the peasants on his estates ; but instead 
of looking after the affair himself, he leaves the con- 
summation of his plans to his stewards, with the 
result that " the cleverest among them listened with 
attention, but considered one thing only, — how to 
carr3' out their own private ends under the pretence 
of executing his commands." Later on we are 
shown Pierre wandering aimlessly about the streets 
of burning Moscow, until taken into custody by the 
French. Then he learns the true meaning of life 
from a simple soldier, a fellow-prisoner, tnd thereby 
realizes that safety for the future is to be obtained 
only by bringing life to the standard of rude sim- 
plicity adopted by the common people, by recogniz- 
ing, in act as well as in deed, the brotherhood of 
man. 

We cannot here enter into the question as to 
whether this mental attitude, by no means unusual 
among Russians of cultivation and liberality, arises 
from the lack of social gradation between the noble 
and the peasant, which forces the social philosopher 
of rank to accept an existence of pure worldliness 
and empty show, or to adopt the primitive aspira- 
tions and humble toil of the tillers of the soil. At 
any rate, it is plain that Count Tolstoi sides with 
the latter. The doctrine of simplification has many 



TRANSLATORS PREFACE. VU 

adherents in Russia, and when, some time ago, it 
was announced that the author of War and Peace 
had retired to the country and was leading a life of 
frugality and unaffected toil in the cultivation of his 
estates, the surprise to his own countrymen could 
not have been very great. In this book he tells us 
how the decision was formed. He bases his conclu- 
sions on a direct and literal interpretation of the 
teachings of Jesus as expressed in the Sermon on 
the Mount. 

The interpretation is not new in theor}', but never 
before has it been carried out with so much zeal, so 
much determination, so much sincerity, and, granting 
the premises, with logic so unanswerable, as in this 
beautiful confession of faith. How movingly does 
he depict the doubts and fears of the searcher 
after the better life ; how impressive his earnest 
inquiry for truth ; how inspiring his confidence in 
the natural goodness, as opposed to the natural 
depravity of man ; how convincing his argument 
that the doctrine of Jesus is simple, practicable, 
and conducive to the highest happiness ; how terri- 
fying his enumeration of the sufferings of ' ' the 
martyrs to the doctrine of the world " ; how pitiless 
his arraignment of the Church for its complacent 
indifference to the welfare of humanity here in this 
present stage of existence ; how sublime his proph- 
ec}" of the golden age when men shall dwell together 
in the bonds of love, and sin and suffering shall 
be no more the common lot of mankind ! We read, 
and are thi'illed with a divine emotion : but which 



viii TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE. 

of US is Tvilling to accept the truth here unfolded as 
the veritable secret of life ? 

Shall we take seriously this eloquent enuncia- 
tion of faith in humihtj, in self-denial, in frater- 
nal love, or shall we regard it only as a beautiful 
and peaceful phase in the career of a man of genius 
who, after the storm and stress of a life of sin and 
suffering, has turned back to the ideals of youth 
and innocence, and sought to make them once more 
the objects of desire? Fanaticism, do you say? 
Ah, yes ; but did not Jesus and his disciples prac- 
tise just such fanaticism as this? Does any one 
deny that all that is best in this modern world (and 
there is so much of the best, after all) , that all that 
is best has come from the great moral impulse gen- 
erated by a little group of .fanatics in an obscure 
corner of Asia eighteen centuries ago ? That im- 
pulse we still feel, in spite of all the obstructions 
that have been put in its wa}' to nuUif}' its action ; 
and if any would seek for strength from the pri- 
mary source of power, who shall say him nay? 
And so although we may smile at the artlessness of 
this Russian evangelist in his determination to find 
in the gospels the categorical imperative of self- 
renunciation, although we may regard with wonder 
the magnificent audacity of his exegetical specula- 
tions, we cannot refuse to admire a faith so sincere, 
so intense, and, in many respects, so elevating and 

so noble. 

HUXTIXGTON SMITH. 

Dorchester, Mass., 
K"ov. 19, 1885, 



INTEODUOTIOU. 



nr HAVE not always been possessed of the religious 
"^ ideas set forth in this book. For thu'ty-five 
3'ears of my life I was, in the proper acceptation of 
the word, a nihilist, — not a revolutionary socialist, 
but a man who believed in nothing. Five years 
ago faith came to me ; I believed in the doctrine of 
Jesus, and my whole life underwent a sudden trans- 
formation. What I had once wished for I wished 
for no longer, and I began to desire what I had 
never desired before. What had once appeared to 
me right now became wrong, and the wrong of the 
past I beheld as right. My condition was like that 
of a man who goes forth upon some errand, and 
having traversed a portion of the road, decides that 
the matter is of no importance, and turns back. 
What was at first on his right hand is now on his 
left, and what was at his left hand is now on his 
right ; instead of going awaj^ from his abode, he 
desires to get back to it as soon as possible. My 
life and my desires were completely changed ; good 



X INTRODUCTION. 

and evil interchanged meanings. Why so? Because 
I understood the doctrine of Jesus in a different way 
from that in which I had understood it before. 

It is not mj purpose to expound the doctrine of 
Jesus ; I wish only to tell how it was that I came 
to understand what there is in this doctrine that is 
simple, clear, evident, indisputable ; how I under- 
stand that part of it which appeals to all men, and 
how this understanding refreshed my soul and gave 
me happiness and peace. 

I do not intend to comment on the doctrine of 
Jesus ; I desu-e only that all comment shall be 
forever done away with. The Christian sects have 
alwaj's maintained that all men, however unequal in 
education and intelligence, are equal before God ; 
that divine truth is accessible to every one. Jesus 
has even declared it to be the will of God that what 
is concealed from the wise shall be revealed to the 
simple. Not every one is able to understand the 
mysteries of dogmatics, homiletics, liturgies, her- 
meneutics, apologetics ; but every one is able and 
ought to understand what Jesus Christ said to the 
millions of simple and ignorant people who have 
lived, and who are living to-day. Now, the things 
that Jesus said to simple people who could not avail 
themselves of the comments of Paul, of Clement, of 



INTRODUCTION. XI 

Chrysostom, and of others, are just what I did not 
understand, and which, now that I have come to 
understand them, I wish to make plain to all. 

The thief on the cross believed in the Christ, and 
was saved. If the thief, instead of dying on the 
cross, had descended from it, and told all men of 
his belief in the Christ, would not the result have 
been of great good? Like the thief on the cross, I 
believe in the doctrine of Jesus, and this belief has 
made me whole. This is not a vain comparison, 
but a truthful expression of my spiritual condition ; 
my soul, once filled with despair of life and fear of 
death, is now full of happiness and peace. 

Like the thief, I knew that my past and present 
life was vile ; I saw that the majority of men about 
me lived unworthy lives. I knew, like the thief, 
that I was wretched and suffering, that all those 
about me suffered and were wretched ; and I saw 
before me nothing but death to save me from this 
condition. As the thief was nailed to his cross, so 
I was nailed to a life of suffering and evil by an in- 
comprehensible power. And as the thief saw before 
him, after the sufferings of a foolish life, the horrible 
shadows of death, so I beheld the same vista open- 
ing before me. 

In all this I felt that I was like the thief. There 



xii INTRODUCTION^. 

was, however, a difference in our conditions ; he 
was about to die, and I — I still lived. The dying 
thief thought perhaps to find his salvation bej'ond 
the grave, while I had before me life and its mystery 
this side the grave. I understood nothing of this 
life ; it seemed to me a frightful thing, and then — 
I understood the words of Jesus, and life and death 
ceased to be evil ; instead of despah', I tasted joy 
and happiness that death could not take away. 

Will any one, then, be offended if I tell the 
story of how all this came about? 

LEO TOLSTOI. 

Moscow, Jan. 22, 1S84. 



MT RELIGIOISr. 



CHAPTER I. 

X SHALL explain elsewhere, in two voluminous 
-L treatises, why I did not understand the doctrine 
of Jesus, and how at length it became clear to me. 
These works are a criticism of dogmatic theology 
and a new translation of the four Gospels, followed 
by a concordance. In these writings I seek methodi- 
cally to disentangle everything that tends to conceal 
the truth from men ; I translate the four Gospels 
anew, verse by verse, and I bring them together in 
a new concordance. The work has lasted for six 
years. Each year, each month, I discover new 
meanings which corroborate the fundamental idea ; 
I correct the errors which have crept in, and 1 put 
the last touches to what I have already written. 
My life, whose final term is not far distant, will 
doubtless end before I have finished my work ; but 
I am convinced that the work will be of great service ; 
so I shall do all that I can to bring it to completion.' 
I do not now concern myself with this outward 
work upon theology and the Gospels, but with an 
inner work of an entirely different nature. I have 
to do now with nothing systematic or methodical, 



2 3IY RELIGION. 

only with that sudden light which showed me the 
Gospel doctrine in all its simple beaut}^. 

The process was something similar to that experi- 
enced by one who, following an erroneous model, 
seeks to restore a statue from broken bits of marble, 
and who with one of the most refractory fragments 
in hand perceives the hopelessness of his ideal ; then 
he begins anew, and instead of the former incon- 
gruities he finds, as he observes the outlines of each 
fragment, that all fit well together and form one 
consistent whole. That is exactly what happened 
to me, and is what I wish to relate. I wish to tell 
how I found the key to the true meaning of the doc- 
trine of Jesus, aud how by this meaning doubt was 
absolutely driven from my soul. The discovery 
came about in this way. 

From my childhood, from the time I first began 
to read the New Testament, I was touched most of 
all by that portion of the doctrine of Jesus which 
inculcates love, humility, self-denial, and the dut}^ 
of returning good for evil. This, to me, has always 
been the substance of Christianity ; my heart recog- 
nized its truth in spite of scepticism and despau', 
and for this reason I submitted to a religion pro- 
fessed by a multitude of toilers, who find in it the 
solution of life, — the religion taught by the Ortho- 
dox Church. But in making my submission to the 
Church, I soon saw that I should not find in its 
creed the confirmation of the essence of Christianit}^ ; 
what was to me essential seemed to be in the dogma 
of the Chm'ch merely an accessory. What was to 



3fT RELIGION. 



me the most important of the teachings of Jesus 
was not so regarded by the Chm-ch. No doubt 
(I thought) the Church sees in Christianity, aside 
from its inner meaning of love, humiUt}', and self- 
denial, an outer, dogmatic meaning, which, however 
strange and even repulsive to me, is not in itself 
evil or pernicious. But the further I went on in sub- 
mission to the doctrine of the Church, the more 
clearly I saw in this particular point something of 
greater importance than I had at first realized. 
What I found most repulsive in the doctrine of the 
Church was the strangeness of its dogmas and the 
approval, nay, the support, which it gave to perse- 
cutions, to the death penalty, to wars stirred up by 
the intolerance common to all sects ; but my faith 
was chiefly shattered by the indifference of the 
Church to what seemed to me essential in the teach- 
ings of Jesus, and its partiality for what seemed to 
me of secondary importance. I felt that something 
was wrong ; but I could not see where the fault lay, 
because the doctrine of the Church did not deny 
what seemed to me essential in the doctrine of 
Jesus ; this essential was fully recognized, yet in 
such a way as not to give it the first place. I could 
not accuse the Church of denying the essence of the 
doctrine of Jesus, but it was recognized in a way 
which did not satisfy me. The Church did not give 
me what I expected from her. I had passed from 
nihilism to the Church simply because I felt it to be 
impossible to live without religion, that is, without 
a knowledge of good and evil aside from animal 



4 MY RELIGION. 

mstincts. I hoped to find this knowledge in Chris- 
tiauit3' ; but Christianity I tlien saw only as a vague 
spiritual tendency, from which it was impossible to 
deduce any clear and peremptory rules for the guid- 
ance of life. These I sought and these I demanded 
of the Church. The Church offered me rules where- 
in I not only sought in vain the practice of the 
Christian life so dear to me, but which drove me 
still further away. I could not become a disciple of 
the Church. An existence based upon Christian 
truth was to me indispensable, and the Church only 
offered me rules completely at variance with the 
truth that I loved. The rules of the Church touch- 
ing articles of faith, dogmas, the observance of the 
sacrament, fasts, pra3'ers, were not necessary to me, 
and did not seem to be based on Christian ti'uth. 
Moreover, the rules of the Church weakened and 
sometimes destroyed the Christian disposition of 
soul which alone gave meaning to my life. 

I was troubled most that the miseries of human- 
ity, the habit of judging one another, of passing 
judgment upon nations and religions, and the wars 
and massacres which resulted in consequence, all 
went on with the approbation of the Church. The 
doctrine of Jesus, — judge not, be humble, forgive 
offences, deny self, love, — this doctrine was ex- 
tolled b}^ the Church in words, but at the same time 
the Church approved what was incompatible with 
the doctrine. Was it possible that the doctrine of 
Jesus admitted of such contradiction? I could not 
believe so. 



MY RELIGION. 5 

Another astonishing thing about the Church was 
that the passages upon which it based affirmation of 
its dogmas were those which were most obscure. 
On the other hand, the passages from which came 
the moral laws were the most clear and precise. 
And yet the dogmas and the duties depending upon 
them were definitely formulated by the Church, while 
the recommendation to obey the moral law was put 
in the most vague and mystical terms. Was this 
the intention of Jesus? The Gospels alone could 
dissipate my doubts. I read them once and again. 

Of all the other portions of the Gospels, the Ser- 
mon on the Mount always had for me an exceptional 
importance. I now read it more frequenth^ than 
ever. Nowhere does Jesus speak with greater so- 
lemnity, nowhere does he propound moral rules more 
definitely and practically, nor do these rules in any 
other form awaken more readily an echo in the 
human heart ; nowhere else does he address himself 
to a larger multitude of the common people. If 
there are any clear and precise Christian principles, 
one ouo;ht to find them here. I therefore souo;ht the 
solution of my doubts in Matthew v., vi., and vii., 
comprising the Sermon on the Mount. These chap- 
ters I read very often, each time with the same emo- 
tional ardor, as I came to the verses which exhort 
the hearer to turn the other cheek, to give up his 
cloak, to be at peace with all the world, to love his 
enemies, — but each time with the same disappoint- 
ment. The divine words were not clear. They 
exhorted to a renunciation so absolute as to entirely 



6 3fY RELIGIOX. 

stifle life as I understood it ; to renounce everything, 
therefore, could not, it seemed to me, be essential 
to salvation. And the moment this ceased to be an 
absolute condition, clearness and precision were at 
an end. 

I read not only the Sermon on the Mount ; I read 
all the Gospels and all the theological commentaries 
on the Gospels. I was not satisfied with the decla- 
rations of the theologians that tlie Sermon on the 
Mount was only an indication of the degree of per- 
fection to which man should aspire ; that man, 
weighed down by sin, could not reach such an ideal ; 
and that the salvation of humanity was in faith and 
prayer and grace. I could not admit the truth of 
these propositions. It seemed to me a strange thing 
that Jesus should propound rules so clear and admi- 
rable, addressed to the understanding of every one, 
and still realize man's inability to carry his doctrine 
into practice. 

Then as I read these maxims I was permeated 
with the joyous assurance that I might that very 
hour, that very moment, begin to practise them. 
The burning desire I felt led me to the attempt, but 
the doctrine of the Church rang in my ears, — Man 
is weak, and to this lie cannot attain; — my strength 
soon failed. On every side I heard, "You must 
believe and pray " ; but my wavering faith impeded 
praj^er. Again I heard, "You must pra}^, and God 
will give you faith ; this faith will inspire prayer, 
which in turn will invoke faith that wiU inspire more 
prayer, and so on, indefinitely." Reason and ex- 



3IT RELIGION. 7 

perience alike conyinced me that such methods 
were useless. It seemed to me that the only true 
way was for me to try to follow the doctrine of 
Jesus. 

And so, after all this fruitless search and careful 
meditation OA'er all that had been written for and 
against the diviuit}^ of the doctrine of Jesus, after 
all this doubt and suffering, I came back face to 
face with the mysterious Gospel message. I could 
not find the meanings that others found, neither 
could I discover what I sought. It was only after 
I had rejected the interpretations of the wise critics 
and theologians, according to the words of Jesus, 
'-''Except ye . . . become cls little children, ye sJiall not 
enter into the kingdom of heaven'' (Matt, xviii. 3) , — 
it was only then that I suddenly understood what 
had been so meaningless before. I understood, not 
through exegetical fantasies or profound and ingen- 
ious textual combinations ; I understood everything, 
because I put all commentaries out of my mind. 
This was the passage that gave me the key to the 
whole : — 

" Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for 
an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, 
That ye resist not evil.'* (Matt. v. 38, 39.) 

One day the exact and simple meaning of these 
words came to me ; I understood that Jesus meant 
neither more nor less than what he said. What I 
saw was nothing new ; only the veil that had hidden 
the truth from me fell away, and the truth was re- 
vealed in all its o-randeur. 



8 J/r EZLIGION. 

" Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for 
an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, 
TJiat ye resist not evil." 

These words suddenly appeared to me as if I had 
never read them before. Always before, when I had 
read this passage, I had, singularly enough, allowed 
certain words to escape me, ^'But I say unto you, 
that ye resist not evil.'' To me it had always been 
as if the words just quoted had never existed, or had 
never possessed a definite meaning. Later on, as I 
talked with many Christians familiar with the Gos- 
pel, I noticed frequently the same blindness with 
regard to these words. iN'o one remembered them, 
and often in speaking of this passage, Chi'istians 
took up the Gospel to see for themselves if the words 
were really there. Through a similar neglect of 
these words I had failed to understand the words 
that follow : — 

'' Bv^ ichosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheeJc, 
tiwn to him the other also," etc. (Matt. v. 39, et 
seq.) 

Always these words had seemed to me to demand 
long-sutFering and privation contrary to human 
nature. They touched me ; I felt that it would be 
noble to follow them, but I also felt that I had not 
the strength to put them into practice. I said to 
myself, "If I turn the other cheek, I shall get 
another blow ; if I give, all that I have will be taken 
away. Life would be an impossibility. Since life 
is given to me, why should I deprive myself of it? 



MY RELIGION. 9 

Jesus cannot demand as much as that." Thus I 
reasoned, persuaded that Jesus, in exalting long- 
suffering and privation, made use of exaggerated 
terms lacking in clearness and precision ; but when 
I understood the words " Resist not evil,'' I saw that 
Jesus did not exaggerate, that he did not demand 
suffering for suffering, but that he had formulated 
with great clearness and precision exactly what he 
wished to say. 

'"'' Hesist not eiv7," knowing that you will meet 
with those who, when the}^ have struck you on one 
cheek and met with no resistance, will strike you on 
the other ; who, having taken away your coat, will 
take away your cloak also ; who, having profited 
b}' your labor, will force you to labor still more 
without reward. And yet, though all this should 
happen to you, " Resist not evil'' ; do good to them 
that injure you. When I understood these words as 
they are written, all that had been obscure became 
clear to me, and what had seemed exaggerated I 
saw to be perfectl}^ reasonable. For the first time I 
grasped the pivotal idea in the words ''Resist not 
evil" ; I saw that what followed was only a devel- 
opment of this command ; I saw that Jesus did not 
exhort us to turn the other cheek that we might 
endure suffering, but that his exhortation was, 
""Resist not evil," and that he afterward declared 
suffering to be the possible consequence of the prac- 
tice of this maxim. 

A father, when his son is about to set out on a 



JO MY RELIGION. 

far journey, commands him not to tarry by the 
way : he does not tell him to pass his nights without 
shJlter, to deprive himself of food, to expose hmi- 
self to rain and cold. He says, " Go thy way, and 
tarry not, though thou should'st be wet or cold. 
So Jesus does not say, ''Turn the other cheek and 
suffer." He says, " Resist not evil " ; no matter what 
happens, '' Besist not:' 

These words, ''Resist not e^'z7," when I under- 
stood thek significance, were to me the key that 
opened all the rest. Then I was astonished that 
I had failed to comprehend words so clear and 

precise. 

" Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye Jor 
an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, 
Tliat ye resist not evil." 

Whatever injury the evil-disposed may inflict upon 
yon, bear it, give all that you have, but resist not. 
Could anything be more clear, more definite, more 
inteUicrible than that? I had only to grasp the sim- 
ple and exact meaning of these words, just as they 
were spoken, when the whole doctrine of Jesus, not 
only as set forth in the Sei-mon on the Mount, but 
in the entire Gospels, became clear to me ; what 
had seemed contradictory was now in harmony ; 
above all, what had seemed superfluous was now 
indispensable. Each portion fell into harmonious 
unison and filled its proper part, like the fragments 
of a broken statue when adjusted in harmony with 
the sculptor's design. In the Sermon on the Mount, 



MY religion: 11 

fis well as throughout the whole Gospel, I found 
everywhere affirmation of the same doctrine, '•'■ Re- 
sist not evil." 

In the Sermon on the Mount, as well as in many 
other places, Jesus represents his disciples, those 
who observe the rule of non-resistance to evil, as 
turning the other cheek, giving up their cloaks, per- 
secuted, used despitef uUy, and in want. Ever3'where 
Jesus says that he who taketh not up his cross, he 
who does not renounce worldly advantage, he who 
is not ready to bear all the consequences of the com- 
mandment, " Resist not evil.)'' cannot become his 
disciple. 

To his disciples Jesus says. Choose to be poor ; 
bear all things without resistance to evil, even 
though you thereby bring upon yourself persecution, 
suffering, and death. 

Prepared to suffer death rather than resist evil, he 
reproved the resentment of Peter, and died exhort- 
ing his followers not to resist and to remain always 
faithful to his doctrine. The early disciples ob- 
served this rule, and passed their lives in misery and 
persecution, without rendering evil for evil. 

It seems, then, that Jesus meant precisely what 
he said. We may declare the practice of such a 
rule to be very difficult ; we may deny that he who 
follows it will find happiness ; we may say with the 
unbelievers that Jesus was a dreamer, an idealist 
who propounded impracticable maxims ; but it is 
impossible not to admit that he expressed in a man- 



12 31 Y RELIGION. 

ner at ouce clear and precise what he wished to say ; 
that is, that according to his doctrine a man must 
not resist evil, and, consequently, that whoever 
adopts his doctrine will not resist evil. And yet 
neither believers nor unbelievers will admit this 
simple and clear interpretation of Jesus' words. 



CHAPTER II. 

WHEN I apprehended clearly the words ' ' Re- 
sist not evil," my conception of the doctrine 
of Jesus was entirely changed ; and I was astounded, 
not that I had failed to understand it before, but 
that I had misunderstood it so strangely. I knew, 
as we all know, that the true significance of the 
doctrine of Jesus was comprised in the injunction to 
love one's neighbor. AVhen we say, " Timi the 
other cheek,'" '•^ Love your enemies,''' we express the 
very essence of Christianity. I knew all that from 
my childhood ; but why had I failed to understand 
aright these simple words? Why had I alwa3^s 
sought for some ulterior meaning? '' Resist not 
evil" mefxns, never resist, never oppose violence; 
or, in other words, never do an3'thing contrary to 
the law of love. If anyone takes advantage of this 
disposition and affronts you, bear the affront, and 
do not, above all, have recourse to violence. This 
Jesus said in words so clear and simple that it 
would be impossible to express the idea more clearty. 
How was it then, that believing or trying to believe 
these to be the words of God, I still maintained the 
impossibility of obeying them ? If my master says 
to me, " Go ; cut some wood," and I reply, "It is 
beyond my strength," I say one of two things : 
either I do not believe what my master says, or I do 



14 MY BELIGION. 

not wish to obey his commands. Should I then say 
of God's commandment that I could not obey it 
without the aid of a supernatural power ? Should I 
say this without having made the slightest effort of 
my own to obey ? We are told that God descended 
to earth to save mankind ; that salvation was 
secured by the second person of the Trinity, who 
suffered for men, thereby redeeming them from sin, 
and gave them the Church as the shrine for the 
transmission of grace to all believers ; but aside 
from this, the Saviour gave to men a doctrine and 
the example of his own life for their salvation. 
How, then, could I say that the rules of life which 
Jesus has formulated so clearly and simply for every 
one — how could I say that these rules were difficult 
to obey, that it was impossible to obey them without 
the assistance of a supernatural power? Jesus saw 
no such impossibility ; he distinctly declared that 
those who did not obey could not enter into the 
kingdom of God. Nowhere did" he say that obedi- 
ence would be difficult ; on the contrary, he said in 
so many words, " My yoke is easy and my burden is 
light'' (Matt. xi. 30). And John, the evangelist, 
says, ^'' His commandments are not grievous'' 
(1 John V. 3). Since God declared the practice of 
his law to be easy, and himself practised it in human 
form, as did also his disciples, how dared I speak of 
the impossibility of obedience without the aid of a 
supernatural power ? 

If one bent all his energies to overthrow any law, 
what could he say of greater force than that the law 



MY E ELI Glow. 15 

was essentially impracticable, and that the maker of 
the law knew it to be impracticable and unattainable 
without the aid of a supernatural power? Yet that 
is exactly what I had been thinking of the com- 
mand, " Resist not evil.'' I endeavored to find out 
how it was that I got the idea that Jesus' law was 
divine, but that it could not be obeyed ; and as I 
reviewed my past history, I perceived that the idea 
had not been communicated to me in all its crude- 
ness (it would then have been revolting to me) , but 
insensibly I had been imbued with it from childhood, 
and all my after life had only confirmed me in error. 
From my childhood I had been taught that Jesus 
was God, and that his doctrine was divine, but at the 
same time I was taught to respect as sacred the 
institutions which protected me from violence and 
evil. I was taught to resist evil, that it was humili- 
ating to submit to evil, and that resistance to it was 
praiseworthy. I was taught to judge, and to inflict 
punishment. Then I was taught the soldier's trade, 
that is, to resist evil b}^ homicide ; the army to 
which I belonged was called "The Christophile 
Arm}'," and it was sent forth with a Christian bene- 
diction. From infancy to manhood I learned to 
venerate things that were in direct contradiction to 
the law of Jesus, — to meet an aggressor with his 
own weapons, to avenge m3'self by violence for all 
offences against my person, my famil}', or my race. 
Not only was I not blamed for this ; I learned to 
regard it as not at all contrary to the law of Jesus. 
All that surrounded me, my personal security and 



16 3fY RELIGION. 

that of my family and my property — depencled then 
upon a law which Jesus reproved, — the law of " a 
tooth for a tooth." My spiritual instructors taught 
me that the law of Jesus was divine, but, because 
of human weakness, impossible of practice, and that 
the grace of Jesus Christ alone could aid us to fol- 
low its precepts. And this instruction agreed with 
what I received in secular institutions and from the 
social organization about me. I was so thoroughly 
possessed with this idea of the impracticabilitj' of 
the divine doctrine, and it harmonized so well with 
m}- desires, that not till the time of awakening did I 
realize its falsity. I did not see how impossible it 
was to confess Jesus and his doctrine, ^'•Resist not 
evil," and at the same time deliberately assist in the 
organization of property, of tribunals, of govern- 
ments, of armies ; to contribute to the establish- 
ment of a polity entirely contrary to the doctrine of 
Jesus, and at the same time pray to Jesus to help us 
to obey his commands, to forgive our sins, and to 
aid us that we resist not evil. I did not see, what is 
very clear to me now, how much more simple it 
would be to organize a method of living conformable 
to the law of Jesus, and then to pray for tribunals, 
and massacres, and wars, and all other things indis- 
pensable to our happiuess. 

Thus I came to understand the source of error 
into which I had fallen. I had confessed Jesus with 
my lips, but my heart was still far from him. The 
command, " Eesist not evil,'' is the central point of 
Jesus' doctrine ; it is not a mere verbal affirmation ; 



MY RELIGION. 17 

it is a rule whose practice is obligatory. It is verily 
the key to the whole mystery ; but the ke}^ must be 
thrust to the bottom of the lock. When we regard 
it as a command impossible of performance, the 
value of the entire doctrine is lost. Why should 
not a doctrine seem impracticable, when we have 
suppressed its fundamental proposition? It is not 
strange that unbelievers look upon it as totally ab- 
surd. When we declare that one may be a Christian 
without observing the commandment, " Resist not 
evil,'' we simply leave out the connecting link which 
transmits the force of the doctrine of Jesus into 
action. 

Some time ago I was reading in Hebrew, the fifth 
chapter of Matthew with a Jewish rabbi. At nearly 
ever}^ verse the rabbi said, " This is in the Bible," 
or "This is in the Talmud," and he showed me in 
the Bible and in the Talmud sentences very like the 
declarations of the Sermon on the Mount. When 
we reached the words, " Resist not evil,'' the rabbi 
did not say, " This is in the Talmud," but he asked 
me, with a smile, " Do the Christians obey this 
command ? Do they turn the other cheek ? " I had 
nothing to say in reply, especially as at that par- 
ticular time, Christians, far from turning the other 
cheek, were smiting the Jews upon both cheeks. 
I asked him if there were anything similar in the 
Bible or in the Talmud. " No," he replied, " there 
is nothing like it ; but tell me, do the Christians 
obey this law ? " It was only another way of saying 
that the presence in the Christian doctrine of a com- 



18 M7 BELIGION. 

mandment wMch no one observed, and which Chris- 
tians themselves regarded as impracticable, is simply 
an avowal of the foolishness and nulhty of that law. 
I could say nothing in reply to the rabbi. , 

Now that I understand the exact meaning of the 
doctrine, I see clearly the strangely contradictory 
position in which I was placed. Having recognized 
the divinity of Jesus and of his doctrine, and having 
at the same time organized a life whollj' contrar}^ to 
that doctrine, what remained for me but to look 
upon the doctrine as impracticable ? [In words I had 
recognized the doctrine of Jesus as sacred ; in 
actions, I had professed a doctriue not at all Chris- 
tian, and I had recognized and reverenced the anti- 
Chiistian customs which hampered my life upon 
every side. ^ The persistent message of the Old 
Testament is that misfortunes came upon the Hebrew 
people because they believed in false gods and 
denied Jehovah. Samuel (I. viii. -xii.) accuses 
the people of adding to their other apostasies the 
choice of a man, upon whom Xh^y depended for 
deliverance instead of upon Jehovah, who was their 
true King. ' ' Turn not aside after tolm^ after vain 
things," Samuel says to the people (I. xii. 21) ; 
"turn not aside after vain things, which cannot 
profit nor deliver ; for they are tohu^ are vain." 
'•Fear Jehovah and serve him. . . . But if ye shall 
still do wickedly, ye shall be consumed, both ye 
and your king" (I. xii. 24, 25). And so with 
me, faith in toliu^ in vain things, in empty idols, had 
concealed the truth from me. Across the path 



3fT RELIGION. 19 

which led to the truth, tohu., the idol of vain things, 
rose before me, cutting off the light, and I had not 
the strength to beat it down. 

On a certain day, at this time, I was walking in 
Moscow towards the Borovitzk}^ Gate, where was 
stationed an old lame beggar, with a dirty cloth 
wrapped about his head. I took out my purse to 
bestow an alms ; but at the same moment I saw a 
young soldier emerging from the Kremlin at a rapid 
pace, head well up, red of face, wearing the State 
insignia of military dignity. The beggar, on per- 
ceiving the soldier, arose in fear, and ran with all his 
might towards the Alexander Garden. The soldier, 
after a vain attempt to come up with the fugitive, 
stopped, shouting forth an imprecation upon the 
poor wretch who had established himself under the 
gateway contrary to regulations. I waited for 
the soldier. When he approached me, I asked him 
if he knew how to read. 

" Yes ; why do you ask?" 

" Have you read the New Testament?" 

"Yes." 

''And do you remember the words, 'If thine 
enemy hunger, feed him. . .'?" 

I repeated the passage. He remembered it, and 
heard me to the end. I saw that he was uneasy. 
Two passers-by stopped and listened. The soldier 
seemed to be troubled that he should be condemned 
for doing his duty in driving persons away from a 
place where they had been forbidden to linger. He 
thought himself at fault, and sought for an excuse. 



20 3IT RELIGION. 

Suddenly his eye brightened ; he looked at me over 
his shoulder, as if he were about to move away. 

" And the military regulation, do you know any- 
thing about that? " he demanded. 

"No," I said. 

" In that case, you have nothing to say to me," 
he retorted, with a triumphant wag of the head, and 
elevating his plume once more, he marched away to 
his post. He was the only man that I ever met who 
had solved, with an inflexible logic, the question 
which eternallj^ confronted me in social relations, 
and which rises continually before every man who 
calls himself a Chiistian. 



CHAPTER ni. 

WE are wrong when we say that the Christian 
doctrine is concerned only with the salvation 
of the individual, and has nothing to do with ques- 
tions of State. Such an assertion is simply a bold 
aflSrmation of an untruth, which, when w^e examine 
it seriously, falls of itself to the ground. It is well 
(so I said) ; I will resist not evil ; I will turn the 
other cheek in private life ; but hither comes the 
enem}^, or here is an oppressed nation, and I am 
called upon to do my part in the struggle against 
evil, to go forth and kill. I must decide the ques- 
tion, to serve God or tohu^ to go to war or not to 
go. Perhaps I am a peasant ; I am appointed 
mayor of a village, a judge, a jmyman ; I am 
obliged to take the oath of office, to judge, to con- 
demn. What ought I to do? Again I must choose 
between the divine law and the human law. Per- 
haps I am a monk living in a monastery ; the neigh- 
boring peasants trespass upon our pasturage, and I 
am appointed to resist evil, to plead for justice 
against the wrong-doers. Again I must choose. 
It is a dilemma from which no man can escape. 

I do not speak of those whose entire lives are 
passed in resisting evil, as military authorities, 
judges, or governors. No one is so obscure that he is 
not oblioed to choose between the service of God and 



22 MY RELIGION. 

the service of tohu^ in his relation to the State. 
My very existence, entangled with that of the State 
and the social existence organized by the State, ex- 
acts from me an anti- Christian activity directly con- 
trary to the commandments of Jesus. In fact, with 
conscription and compulsory jury service, this piti- 
less dilemma arises before every one. Every one is 
forced to take up murderous weapons ; and even if 
he does not get as far as murder, his weapons must 
be readj', his carbine loaded, and his sword keen of 
edge, that he may declare himself ready for murder. 
Every one is forced into the service of the courts to 
take part in meting out judgment and sentence ; that 
is, to deny the commandment of Jesus, " Resist not 
evil.,'" in acts as well as in words. 

The soldier's problem, the Gospel or military 
regulations, divine law or human law, is before 
mankind to-day as it was in the time of Samuel. It 
was forced upon Jesus and upon his disciples ; it is 
forced in these times upon all who would be Chris- 
tians ; and it was forced upon me. 

The law of Jesus, with its doctrine of love, humility, 
and self-denial, touched my heart more deeply than 
ever before. But everywhere, in the annals of his- 
tory, in the events that were going on about me, in 
my individual life, I saw the law opposed in a man- 
ner revolting to sentiment, conscience, and reason, 
and encouraging to brute instincts. I felt that if I 
adopted the law of Jesus, I should be alone ; I should 
pass man}' unhappy hours ; I should be persecuted 
and afflicted as Jesus had said. But if I adopted 



3IY RELIGION. 23 

the human law, eveiTbody would approve ; I should 
be in peace and safety, with all the resources of civ- 
ilization at my command to put my conscience at 
ease. As Jesus said, I should laugh and be glad. I 
felt all this, and so I did not analyze the meaning of 
the doctrine of Jesus, but sought to understand it 
in such a way that it might not interfere with my 
life as an animal. That is, I did not wish to under- 
stand it at all. This*' determination not to under- 
stand led me into delusions which now astound me. 
As an instance in point, let me explain my former 
understanding of these words : — 

'■^ Judge not, that ye he not judged.'' (Matt. vii. 1.) 
'■'• Judge not, and ye shall not he judged; condemn 
not, and ye shall not he condemned.'' (Luke vi. 37.) 
The courts in which I served, and which insured 
the safety of my property and my person, seemed to 
be institutions so indubitably sacred and so entirely 
in accord with the divine law, it had never entered 
into my head that the words I have quoted could 
have any other meaning than an injunction not to 
speak ill of one's neighbor. It never occurred to 
me that Jesus spoke in these words of the courts of 
human law and justice. It was only when I under- 
stood the true meaning of the words, " Resist not 
evil," that the question arose as to Jesus' advice 
with regard to tribunals. When I understood that 
Jesus would denounce them, I asked myself, Is not 
this the real meaning : Xot onl v do not judge your 
neighbor, do not speak ill of him, but do not judge 
him in the courts, do not judge him in any of the 



24 MY RELIGION. 

tribunals that you have instituted? Now in Luke 
(vi. 37-49) these words follow immediately the doc- 
ti'ine that exhorts us to resist not evil and to do good 
to our enemies. And after the injunction, " jBe ye 
therefore merciful^ as your Father also is merciful^" 
Jesus says, '•'' Judge not, and ye shall not he judged; 
condemn not, and ye shall not he condemned." ' '•Judge 
not; " does not this mean, Institute no tribunals for 
the judgment of your neighbor ? I had only to bring 
this boldly before myself when heart and reason 
united in an affirmative reph'. 

To show how far I was before from the ti'ue inter- 
pretation, I shall confess a foolish pleasantry for 
which I still blush. When I was reading the New 
Testament as a divine book at the time that I had 
become a believer, I was in the habit of saying to 
my friends who were judges or attorneys, "And you 
still judge, although it is said, ' Judge not, and ye 
shall not be judged'?" I was so sure that these 
words could have no other meaning than a condem- 
nation of evil-speaking that I did not comprehend 
the horrible blasphemy which I thus committed. I 
was so thoroughly convinced that these words did 
not mean what they did mean, that I quoted them in 
their true sense in the form of a pleasantly. 

I shall relate in detail how it was that all doubt 
with regard to the ti'ue meaning of these words was 
effaced from my mind, and how I saw their purport 
to be that Jesus denounced the institution of all 
human tribunals, of whatever sort ; that he meant 
to say so, and could not have expressed himself 



MY RELIGION. 25 

otherwise. When I understood the command, "i?e- 
sist not evil,'' in its proper sense, the first thing that 
occurred to me was that tribunals, instead of con- 
forming to this law, were directly opposed to it, and 
indeed to the entire doctrine ; and therefore that if 
Jesus had thought of tribunals at all, he would have 
condemned them. 

Jesus said, ^''Resist not evil" ; the sole aim of 
tribunals is to resist evil. Jesus exhorted us to 
return good for evil ; tribunals return evil for evil. 
Jesus said that we were to make no distinction 
between those who do good and those who do evil ; 
tribunals do nothing else. Jesus said. Forgive, 
forgive not once or seven times, but without limit ; 
love your enemies, do good to them that hate you — 
but tribunals do not forgive, they punish ; they re- 
turn not good but evil to those whom they regard as 
the enemies of society. It would seem, then, that 
Jesus denounced judicial institutions. Perhaps 
(I said) Jesus never had anything to do with courts 
of justice, and so did not think of them. But I saw 
that such a theory was not tenable. Jesus, from 
his childhood to his death, was concerned with the 
tribunals of Herod, of the Sanhedrim, and of the 
High Priests. I saw that Jesus must have regarded 
courts of justice as wrong. He told his disciples 
that they would be dragged before the judges, and 
gave them advice as to how they should comport 
themselves. He said of himself that he should be 
condemned by a tribunal, and he showed what the 
attitude toward judges ought to be. Jesus, then, 



26 MT RELIGION. 

must have thought of the judicial institutions which 
condemned him and his disciples ; which have con- 
demned and continue to condemn millions of men. 

Jesus saw the wrong and faced it. When the 
sentence against the woman taken in adultery was 
about to be carried into execution, he absolutely 
denied the possibility of human justice, and demon- 
strated that man could not be the judge since man 
himself was guilty. And this idea he has pro- 
pounded many times, as where it is declared that 
one with a beam in his eye cannot see the mote in 
another's eye, or that the blind cannot lead the 
blind. He even pointed out the consequences of 
such misconceptions, — the disciple would be above 
his Master. 

Perhaps, however, after having denounced the 
incompetency of human justice as displayed in the 
case of the woman taken in adultery, or illustrated 
in the parable of the mote and the beam ; perhaps, 
after all, Jesus would admit of an appeal to the 
justice of men where it was necessary for protection 
against evil ; but I soon saw that this was inadmissi- 
ble. In the Sermon on the Mount, he says, addi'ess- 
ing the multitude, 

'"'•And if any man will sue thee at the laiv, and taJce 
away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also." (Matt. 
V. 40.) 

Once more, perhaps Jesus spoke only of the 
personal bearing which a man should have when 
brought before judicial institutions, and did not con- 
demn justice, but admitted the necessity in a Chris- 



MY RELIGION. 27 

tian society of individuals who judge others in 
properly constituted forms. But I saw that this 
view was also inadmissible. When he prayed, Jesus 
besought all men, without exception, to forgive 
others, that their own trespasses might be forgiven. 
This thought he often expresses. He who brings 
his gift to the altar with prayer must first grant for- 
giveness. How, then, could a man judge and 
condemn when his religion commanded him to for- 
give all trespasses, without limit? So I saw that 
according to the doctrine of Jesus no Christian 
judge could pass sentence of condemnation. 

But might not the relation between the words 
^^ Judge not, and ye shall not he judged'^ and the 
preceding or subsequent passages permit us to con- 
clude that Jesus, in saying ''^ Judge not,'' had no 
reference whatever to judicial institutions ? No ; 
this could not be so ; on the contrary, it is clear from 
the relation of the phi'ases that in saying " Judge 
not,'' Jesus did actually speak of judicial institu- 
tions. According to Matthew and Luke, before 
saying '^ Judge not, condemn not," his command 
was to resist not evil. And prior to this, as Matthew 
tells us, he repeated the ancient criminal law of the 
Jews, " An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth." 
Then, after this reference to the old criminal law, 
he added, ''But I say unto you. That ye resist not 
evil"; and, after that, ''Judge not." Jesus did, 
then, refer directly to human criminal law, and 
reproved it in the words, "Judge not." Moreover, 
according to Luke, he not only said, "Judge not," 



28 MY RELIGION. 

but also, '•'• Condemn not" It was not without a 
purpose that he added this almost synou3-mous 
word ; it shows clearly what meaning should be at- 
tributed to the other. If he had wished to say 
"Judge not your neighbor," he would have said 
"neighbor"; but he added the words which are 
translated " Condemn not,'' and then completed the 
sentence, " And ye shall not he condemned: forgive, 
and ye sliall he forgiven.'' But some may still insist 
that Jesus, in expressing himself in this wa}', did 
not refer at all to the tribunals, and that I have read 
my own thoughts into his teachings. Let the apos- 
tles tell us what they thought of courts of justice, 
and if they recognized and approved of them. The 
apostle James says (iv. 11, 12) : — 

'•'• Speak not evil one of another, hretJiren. He 
that speaheth evil of his hrotlier, and judgeth his 
hrother, speaketh evil of the laic, and judgeth the laio : 
hut if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the 
law, hut a judge. There is 07ie laiugiver, ivho is able 
to save and to destroy : ivho art thou that judgest 
another 9 " 

The word translated "speak evil" is the verb 
KaraXoXeo), which means "to speak against, to ac- 
cuse " ; this is its true meaning, as any one may find 
out for himself by opening a dictionary. In the 
translation we read, " ^e that speaketh evil of his 
hrother, . . . speaketh evil of the lazv." Why so? is 
the question that involuntarily arises. I may speak 
evil of my brother, but I do not thereby speak evil 



MY RELIGION, 29 

of the law. If, however, I accuse my brother, if I 
bring him to justice, it is plain that I thereb}^ accuse 
the law of Jesus of insufficienc}^ : I accuse and 
judge the law. It is clear, then, that I do not prac- 
tise the law, but that I make myself a judge of the 
law. " J!^ot to judge, but to save " is Jesus' declara- 
tion. How then shall I, who cannot save, become a 
judge and punish? The entire passage refers to 
human justice, and denies its authority. The whole 
epistle is permeated with the same idea. In the 
second chapter we read : — 

^^ For he shall have judgment without mercy, that 
hath shelved no mercy ; and mercy is exalted above 
judgment." '^ (Jas. ii. 13.) 

(The last phrase has been translated in such a 
way as to declare that judgment is compatible with 
Christianity, but that it ought to be merciful.) 

James exhorts his brethren to have no respect of 
persons. If you have respect of the condition of 
persons, j^ou are guilty of sin ; you are like the 
untrustworthy judges of the tribunals. You look 
upon the beggar as the refuse of society, while it is 
the rich man who ought to be so regarded. He it is 
who oppresses 3'ou and draws jou before the judg- 
ment-seats. If 3^ou live according to the law of love 
for your neighbor, according to the law of mercy 
(which James calls " the law of liberty,'' to distin- 
guish it from all others) — if 3'ou live according to 

1 Count Tolstoi's rendering. 



80 MY BELIGION. 

this law, it is well. But if 3'ou have respect of per- 
sons, you transgress the law of ■ mere}'. Then 
(doubtless thinking of the case of the woman taken 
in adultery, who, when she was brought before 
Jesus, was about to be put to death according to 
the law), thinking, no doubt, of that case, James 
says that he who inflicts death upon the adulterous 
woman would himself be guilty of murder, and 
thereby transgress the eternal law ; for the same law 
forbids both adultery and murder. 

*' /So speak ye^ and so do, as they that shall be judged 
by the laiv of liberty. For he shall have judgment 
without mercy, that hath shetced no mercy; and mercy 
is exalted above judgment.''^ (Jas. ii. 12, 13.) 

Could the idea be expressed in terms more clear 
and precise? Respect of persons is forbidden, as 
well as any judgment that shall classify persons as 
good or bad ; human judgment is declared to 
be inevitably defective, and such judgment is de- 
nounced as criminal when it condemns for crime ; 
judgment is blotted out by the eternal law, the law 
of merc}^ 

I open the epistles of Paul, who had been a vic- 
tim of tribunals, and in the letter to the Romans I 
read the admonitions of the apostle for the vices 
and errors of those to whom his words are ad- 
dressed ; among other matters he speaks of courts 
of justice : — 

" Who, hnowing the judgment of God, that they 
which commit such things are luorthy of death, not 



MY RELIGION. 31 

only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do 
them.'' (Rom. L 32.) 

" TJierefore thou art inexcusable, man, ivhosoever 
thou art that judgest: for icherein thou judgest an- 
other, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest 
doest the same things." (E-om. ii. 1.) 

" Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and 
forbearance and long suffering ; not knowing that the 
goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?" (Rom. 
ii. 4.) 

Such was the opinion of the apostles with regard 
to tribunals, and we know that human justice was 
among the trials and sufferings that they endured 
with steadfastness and resignation to the will of 
God. When we think of the situation of the early 
Christians, surrounded by unbelievers, we can under- 
stand that a denial of the right to judge persecuted 
Christians before the tribunals was not considered. 
The apostles spoke of it only incidentally as an evil, 
and denied its authority on every occasion. 

I examined the teachings of the early Fathers of 
the Church, and found them to agree in obliging no 
one to judge or to condemn, and in urging all to 
bear the inflictions of justice. The martyrs, by 
their acts, declared themselves to be of the same 
mind. I saw that Christianity before Constantine 
regarded tribunals only as an evil which was to be 
endured with patience ; but it never could have 
occurred to any earl}^ Christian that he could take 
part in the administration of the courts of justice. 



32 MY RELIGION. 

It is plain, therefore, that Jesus' words, '^ Judge not, 
condemn not,'' were understood by his first disciples, 
as they ought to be understood now, in their direct 
and literal meaning : judge not in courts of justice ; 
take no part in them. 

All this seemed absolutely to corroborate my con- 
viction that the words, '•'• Judge not, condemn not," 
referred to the justice of tribunals. Yet the mean- 
ing, " Speak not evil of your neighbor," is so firmly 
established, and courts of justice flaunt their decrees 
with so much assurance and audacity in all Christian 
societies, with the support even of the Church, that 
for a long time still I doubted the wisdom of my 
interpretation. If men have understood the words 
in this way (I thought) , and have instituted Chris- 
tian tribunals, they must certainly have some reason 
for so doing ; there must be a good reason for re- 
garding these words as a denunciation of evil-speak- 
ing, and there is certainly a basis of some sort for 
the institution of Christian tribunals ; perhaps, after 
all, I am in the wrong.. 

I turned to the Church commentaries. In all, 
from the fifth century onward, I found the invari- 
able interpretation to be, "Accuse not your neigh- 
bor"; that is, avoid evil-speaking. As the words 
came to be understood exclusively in this sense, a 
difficulty arose, — How to refrain from judgment? 
It being impossible not to condemn evil, all the 
commentators discussed the question. What is blam- 
able and what is not blamable? Some, such as 



MT religion: 33 

Chrysostom and Theophylact, said that, as far as 
servants of the Church were concerned, the phrase 
could not be construed as a prohibition of censure, 
since the apostles themselves were censorious. 
Others said that Jesus doubtless referred to the 
Jews, who accused then' neighbors of shortcomings, 
and were themselves guilt}' of great sins. 

Nowhere a word about human institutions, about 
tribunals, to show how they were affected by the 
warning, '-'• Judge not." Did Jesus sanction courts 
of justice, or did he not? To this very natural ques- 
tion I found no reply — as if it was evident that 
from the moment a Christian took his seat on the 
judge's bench he might not only judge his neighbor, 
but condemn him to death. 

I turned to other writers, Greek, Catholic, Prot- 
estant, to the Tubingen school, to the historical 
school. Everywhere, even by the most liberal com- 
mentators, the words in question were interpreted 
as an injunction against evil-speaking. 

But why, contrary to the spirit of the whole doc- 
trine of Jesus, are these words interpreted in so 
narrow a way as to exclude courts of justice from 
the injunction, ''Judge not"? Why the supposi- 
tion that Jesus in forbidding the comparatively light 
offence of speaking evil of one's neighbor did not 
forbid, did not even consider, the more deliberate 
judgment which results in punishment inflicted upon 
the condemned ? To all this I got no response ; not 
even an allusion to the least possibility that the 



34 3IT RELIGION. 

words "to judge" could be used as referring to a 
court of justice, to tlie tribunals from whose pun- 
ishments so many millions have suffered. 

Moreover, when the words, " Judge not, con- 
demn not,'' are under discussion, the cruelty of 
judging in courts of justice is passed over in 
silence, or else commended. The commentators 
all declare that in Christian societies tribunals 
are necessary, and in no way contrary to the law 
of Jesus. 

Eealizing this, I began to doubt the sincerity of 
the commentators ; and I did what I should have 
done in the first place ; I turned to the textual trans- 
lations of the words which we render "to judge" 
and "to condemn." In the original these words 
are Kplvoi and KaraSt/ca^w. The defective translation 
in James of KaraAaAeo), which is rendered " to speak 
evil," strengthened my doubts as to the correct 
translation of the others. When I looked through 
different versions of the Gospels, I found KaraSt/ca^o) 
rendered in the Vulgate hj condemnare, "to con- 
demn " ; in the Sclavonic text the rendering is 
equivalent to that of the Vulgate ; Luther has ver- 
dammen, "to speak evil of." These divergent 
renderings increased my doubts, and I was obliged 
to ask again the meaning of KptVoj, as used by the 
two evangelists, and of KaraStKa^co, as used by 
Luke who, scholars tell us, wrote very correct 
Greeko 

How would these words be translated by a man 



31 Y EELIGIOJ^. 35 

who knew nothing of the evangelical creed, and 
who had before him onlj- the phrases iu which they 
are used ? 

Consulting the dictionary, I found that the word 
Kpivoi had several different meanings, among the 
most used being "to condemn in a court of jus- 
tice," and even " to condemn to death," but in no 
instance did it signify "to speak evil." I con- 
sulted a dictionary of New Testament Greek, and 
found that was often used in the sense " to con- 
demn in a court of justice," sometimes in the sense 
"to choose," never as meaning "to speak evil." 
From which I inferred that the word KptVw might be 
translated in different ways, but that the rendering 
"to speak evil" was the most forced and far- 
fetched. 

I searched for the word KaraStKct^w, which follows 
/c/atVo), evidentlj' to define more closely the sense in 
which the latter is to be understood. I looked for 
KaraSiKa^oi in the dictionary, and found that it had 
no other signification than "to condemn in judg- 
ment," or "to judge worth}' of death." I found 
that the word was used four times in the New Tes- 
tament, each time in the sense ' ' to condemn under 
sentence, to judge worthy of death." In James (v. 
6) we read, " Ye have condemned and killed the 
just.'' The word rendered "condemned" is this 
same KaraStKa^w, and is used with reference to Jesus, 
who was condemned to death by a court of justice. 
The word is never used in any other sense, in the 



36 J/F RELIGION. 

New Testament or in any other writing in the Greek 
lanouaoje. 

What, then, are we to say to all this? Is my 
conclusion a foolish one? Is not every one who 
considers the fate of humanity filled with horror at 
the sufferings inflicted upon mankind 'by the enforce- 
ment of criminal codes, — a scourge to those who 
condemn as well as to the condemned, — from the 
slaughters of Genghis Khan to those of the French 
Revolution and the executions of our own times? 
He would indeed be without compassion who could 
refrain from feeling horror and repulsion, not only 
at the sight of human beings thus treated by their 
kind, but at the simple recital of death inflicted by 
the knout, the guillotine, or the gibbet. 

The Gospel, of which every word is sacred to you, 
declares distinctly and without equivocation : ' ' You 
have from of old a criminal law, An eye for an eye, 
a tooth for a tooth ; but a new law is given you, That 
you resist not evil. Obey this law ; render not evil 
for evil, but do good to every one, forgive every one, 
under all circumstances." Further on comes the 
injunction, '^ Judge not," and that these words might 
not be misunderstood, Jesus added, " Condemn not; 
condemn not in justice the crimes of others." 

"No more death-warrants," said an inner voice — 
"no more death-warrants," said the voice of science ; 
" evil cannot suppress evil." The Word of God, in 
which I believed, told me the same thing. And 
when in reading the doctrine, I came to the words. 



MY RELIGION. 37 

** Condemn not, and ye slicdl not he condemned: for- 
give, and ye shall be forgiven,'' could I look upon 
them as meaning simply that I was not to indulge in 
gossip and evil-speaking, and should continue to 
regard tribunals as a Christian institution, and my- 
self as a Christian judge ? 

I was overwhelmed with hoiTor at the grossness 
of the error into which I had fallen. 



CHAPTER IV. 

I NOW understood the words of Jesus : " Fe have 
heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, 
and a tooth for a tooth: hut I say unto you, TJiat 
ye resist not evil.'' Jesus' meaning is: "You have 
thought that you were acting in a reasonable manner 
in defending yourself by violence against evil, in 
tearing out an eye for an eye, by fighting against 
evil with criminal tribunals, guardians of the peace, 
armies ; but I say unto 3'ou, Renounce violence ; 
have nothing to do with violence ; do harm to no 
one, not even to your enemy." I understood now 
that in saying '•^Resist not evil,'' Jesus not only told 
us what would result from the observance of this 
rule, but established a new basis for society con- 
formable to his doctrine and opposed to the social 
basis established by the law of Moses, by Roman 
law, and by the different codes in force to-daj'. He 
formulated a new law whose effect would be to de- 
liver humanity from its self-inflicted woes. His 
declaration was: "You believe that your laws 
reform criminals ; as a matter of fact, they only 
make more criminals. There is only one way to 
suppress evil, and that is to return good for evil, 
without respect of persons. For thousands of years 



3TY RELIGION. 39 

you hare tried the other method ; now try mine, try 
the reverse." 

Strange to say, in these later days, I talked with 
different persons about this commandment of Jesus, 
''''Resist not evil.,'" and rarel}^ found any one to coin- 
cide with my opinion ! Two classes of men would 
never, even by implication, admit the literal inter- 
pretation of the law. These men were at the ex- 
treme poles of the social scale, — they were the 
conservative Christian patriots who maintained the 
infallibility of the Church, and the atheistic revolu- 
tionists. Neither of these two classes was willing 
to renounce the right to resist by violence what they 
regarded as evil. And the wisest and most intel- 
ligent among them would not acknowledge the simple 
and evident truth, that if we once admit the right of 
any man to resist by violence what he regards as 
evil, every other man has equally the right to resist 
by violence what he regards as evil. 

Not long ago I had in my hands an interesting 
correspondence between an orthodox Slavophile and 
a Christian revolutionist. The one advocated vio- 
lence as a partisan of a war for the relief of brother 
Slavs in bondage ; the other, as a partisan of revo- 
lution, in the name of our brothers the oppressed 
Russian peasantry. Both invoked violence, and each 
based himself upon the doctrine of Jesus. The doc- 
trine of Jesus is understood in a hundred different 
ways ; but never, unhappily, in the simple and 
direct way which harmonizes with the inevitable 
meaninof of Jesus' words. 



40 MY RELIGION. 

Our entire social fabric is founded upon prin- 
ciples that Jesus reproved ; we do not wish to 
understand his doctrine in its simple and direct 
acceptation, and 3'et we assure ourselves and others 
that we follow his doctrine, or else that his doctrine 
is not expedient for us. Believers profess that 
Christ as God, the second person of the Trinity, 
descended upon earth to teach men by his example 
how to live ; they go through the most elaborate 
ceremonies for the consummation of the sacraments, 
the building of temples, the sending out of mission- 
aries, the establishment of priesthoods, for parochial 
administration, for the performance of rituals ; but 
they forget one little detail, — the practice of the 
commandments of Jesus. Unbelievers endeavor in 
every possible way to organize their existence inde- 
pendent of the doctrine of Jesus, they having de- 
cided a priori that this doctrine is of no account. 
But to endeavor to put his teachings in practice, this 
each refuses to do ; and the worst of it is, that with- 
out any attempt to put them in practice, both be- 
lievers and unbelievers decide a priori that it is 
impossible. 

Jesus said, simply and clearly, that the law of 
resistance to evil by violence, which has been made 
the basis of society, is false, and contrary to man's 
nature ; and he gave another basis, that of non- 
resistance to evil, a law which, according to his 
doctrine, would deliver man from wrong. "You 
believe" (he says in substance) "that your laws, 
which resort to violence, correct evil ; not at all ; 



MT RELIGIOir. 41 

they only augment it. For thousands of years you 
have tried to destroy evil b}^ evil, and 3'ou have not 
destroyed it ; you have only augmented it. Do as I 
command you, follow my example, and you will 
know that my doctrine is true." Not only in words, 
but by his acts, by his death, did Jesus propound 
his doctrine, '-'• Resist not evil." 

Believers listen to all this. They hear it in their 
churches, persuaded that the words are divine ; they 
worship Jesus as God, and then they say: "All 
this is admirable, but it is impossible ; as society is 
now organized, it would derange our whole exist- 
ence, and we should be obliged to give up the cus- 
toms that are so dear to us. We believe it all, but 
onl}' in this sense : That it is the ideal toward which 
humanity ought to move ; the ideal which is to be 
attained by prayer, and by believing in the sacra- 
ments, in the redemption, and in the resurrection of 
the dead." 

The others, the unbelievers, the free-thinkers who 
comment on the doctrine of Jesus, the historians of 
religions, the Strausses, the Kenans, — completely 
imbued with the teachings of the Church, which says 
that the doctrine of Jesus accords with difficulty 
with our conceptions of life, — tell us very seriously 
that the doctrine of Jesus is the doctrine of a vis- 
ionary, the consolation of feeble mhids ; that it was 
all very well preached in the fishermen's huts 
by Galilee ; but that for us it is only the sweet 
dream of one whom Kenan calls the " charmant 
docteur." 



42 MY RELIGION. 

In their opinion, Jesus could not rise to the heights 
of wisdom and culture attained by our civilization. 
If he had been on an intellectual level with his mod- 
ern critics, he never would have uttered his charm- 
ing nonsense about the birds of the air, the turning 
of the other cheek, the taking no thought for the 
morrow. These historical critics judge of the value 
of Christianity b}^ what they see of it as it now 
exists. The Christianity of our age and civiliza- 
tion approves of society as it now is, with its 
prison-cells, its factories, its houses of infamy, its 
parliaments ; but as for the doctrine of Jesus, 
which is opposed to modern society, it is only 
empt}" words. The historical critics see this, and, 
unlike the so-called believers, having no motives 
for concealment, submit the doctrine to a careful 
analysis ; they refute it systematically, and prove 
that Christianity is made up of nothing but chi- 
merical ideas. 

It would seem that before deciding upon the doc- 
trine of Jesus, it would be necessary to understand 
of what it consisted ; and to decide whether his 
doctrine is reasonable or not, it would be well first 
to realize that he said exactly what he did say. 
And this is precisely what we do not do, what the 
Church commentators do not do, what the free- 
thinkers do not do — and we know very well why. 
We know perfectly well that the doctrine of Jesus 
is directed at and denounces all human errors, all 
tohic, all the empty idols that we try to except 
from the category of errors, by dubbing them 



MY religion: 43 

"Church," "State," "Culture," "Science,'' "Art," 
" Civilization." But Jesus spoke precisely of all 
these, of these and all other toJiu. Not only Jesus, 
but all the Hebrew prophets, John the Baptist, all 
the true sages of the world denounced the Church 
and State and culture and civilization of their times 
as sources of man's perdition. 

Imagine an architect who sa3^s to a house-owner, 
" Your house is good for nothing ; you must rebuild 
it," and then describes how the supports are to be 
cut and fastened. The proprietor turns a deaf ear 
to the words, "Your house is good for nothing," 
and only listens respectfully when the architect 
begins to discuss the arrangement of the rooms. 
Evidently, in this case, all the subsequent advice 
of the architect will seem to be impracticable ; less 
respectful proprietors would regard it as nonsen- 
sical. But it is precisely in this wa}^ that we treat 
the doctrine of Jesus. I give this illustration for 
want of a better. I remember now that Jesus in 
teaching his doctrine made use of the same com- 
parison. '' Destroy this temple," he said, '^ and in 
three days Ituill raise it upJ^ It was for this they 
put him on the cross, and for this they now crucify 
his doctrine. 

The least that can be asked of those who pass 
judgment upon any doctrine is that they shall judge 
of it with the same understanding as that with which 
it was propounded. Jesus understood his doctrine, 
not as a vague and distant ideal impossible of 
attainment, not as a collection of fantastic and 



44 3fY RELIGIOX. 

poetical reveries with which to charm the simple 
inhabitants on the shores of Galilee ; to him his doc- 
trine was a doctrine of action, of acts which should 
become the salvation of mankind. This he showed 
in his manner of applying his docti'ine. The cruci- 
fied one who cried out in agony of spirit and died 
for his docti'ine was not a dreamer ; he was a man 
of action. They are not di-eamers who have died, 
and still die, for his doctrine. No ; that doctrine 
is not a chimera ! 

All doctrine that reveals the truth is chimerical 
to the blind. TTe may say, as many people do say 
(I was of the number) , that the doctiine of Jesus 
is chimerical because it is contrary to human nature. 
It is against nature, we say, to turn the other cheek 
when we have been struck, to give all that we pos- 
sess, to toil not for ourselves but for others. It is 
natural, we say, for a man to defend his person, 
his family, his property ; that is to say, it is the 
nature of man to sti'uggie for existence. A learned 
person has proved scientifically that the most sacred 
duty of man is to defend his rights, that is, to fight. 

But the moment we detach ourselves from the 
idea that the existing organization established by 
man is the best, is sacred, the moment we do this, 
the objection that the doctrine of Jesus is conti'ary 
to human nature turns immediateh' upon him who 
makes it. No one will deny that not only to kill or 
torture a man, but to torture a dog, to kill a fowl or 
a calf, is to inflict suffering reproved by human 
nature, (I have known of farmers who had ceased 



MY RELIGION. 45 

to eat meat solely because it had fallen to their lot 
to slaughter animals.) And yet our existence is so 
organized that every personal enjo3'ment is pur- 
chased at the price of human suffering contrary to 
human nature. 

We have only to examine closely the complicated 
mechanism of our institutions that are based upon 
coercion to realize that coercion and violence are 
contrary to human nature. The judge who has 
condemned according to the code, is not willing to 
hang the criminal with his own hands ; no clerk 
would tear a villager from his weeping family and 
cast him into prison ; the general or the soldier, 
unless he be hardened by discipline and service, 
will not undertake to slay a hundred Turks or Ger- 
mans or destroy a village, would not, if he could 
help it, kill a single man. Yet all these things 
are done, thanks to the administrative machinery 
which divides responsibility for misdeeds in such 
a way that no one feels them to be contrary to 
nature. 

Some make the laws, others execute them ; some 
train men by discipline to automatic obedience ; and 
these last, in their turn, become the instruments of 
coercion, and slay their kind without knowing why 
or to what end. But let a man disentangle himself 
for a moment from this complicated network, and 
he will readil}' see that coercion is contrary to his 
nature. Let us abstain from affirming that organ- 
ized violence, of which we make use to our own 
profit, is a divine, immutable law, and we shall see 



46 MY EELIGION. 

clearly which is most in harmony with human nature, 
— the doctrine of violence or the doctrine of Jesus. 

What is the law of nature ? Is it to know that 
my security and that of my family, all my amuse- 
ments and pleasures, are purchased at the expense 
of misery, deprivation, and suffering to thousands 
of human beings — by the terror of the gallows ; 
by the misfortune of thousands stifling within 
prison walls ; by the fear inspired by millions of 
soldiers and guardians of civilization, torn from 
their homes and besotted by discipline, to protect 
our pleasures with loaded revolvers against the pos- 
sible interference of the famishing? Is it to pm-- 
chase every fragment of bread that I put in my 
mouth and the mouths of m}^ childi'en by the num- 
berless privations that are necessary to procure my 
abundance ? Or is it to be certain that my piece of 
bread only belongs to me when I know that every one 
else has a share, and that no one starves while I eat? 

It is only necessary to understand that, thanks to 
our social organization, each one of our pleasures, 
every minute of our cherished tranquillity, is obtained 
by the sufferings and privations of thousands of our 
fellows — it is only necessary to understand this, 
to know what is conformable to human nature ; not 
to our animal nature alone, but the animal and spir- 
itual nature which constitutes man. When we once 
understand the doctrine of Jesus in all its bearings, 
with all its consequences, we shall be convinced that 
his doctrine is not contrary to human nature ; but 
that its sole object is to supplant the chimerical law 



MY RELIGION. 47 

of the struggle against evil by violence — itself the 
law contrary to human nature and productive of so 
many evils. 

Do you say that the doctrine of Jesus, '•'• Resist 
not evil" is vain? What, then, are we to think of 
the lives of those who are not filled with love alid 
compassion for then' kind, — of those who make ready 
for their fellow-men punishment at the stake, by the 
knout, the wheel, the rack, chains, compulsory labor, 
the gibbet, dungeons, prisons for women and chil- 
dren, the hecatombs of war, or bring about periodi- 
cal revolutions ; of those who carry these horrors 
into execution ; of those who benefit by these cal- 
amities or prepare reprisals, — are not such lives 
vain? 

We need only understand the doctrine of Jesus, 
to be convinced that existence, — not the reasonable 
existence which gives happiness to humanity, but 
the existence men have organized to their own hurt, 
— that such an existence is a vanity, the most sav- 
age and horrible of vanities, a veritable delirium of 
folly, to which, once reclaimed, we do not again 
return. 

God descended to earth, became incarnate to re- 
deem Adam's sin, and (so we were taught to believe) 
said many mysterious and mystical things which are 
difficult to understand, which it is not possible to 
understand except by the aid of faith and grace — 
and suddenly the words of God are found to be sim- 
ple, clear, and reasonable ! God said. Do no evil, 
and evil will cease to exist. Was the revelation 



48 3IY religion: 

from God really so simple — nothing but that? It 
would seem that every one might understand it, it is 
so simple ! 

The prophet Elijah, a fugitive from men, took 
refuge in a cave, and was told that God would ap- 
pear to him. There came a great wind that devas- 
tated the forest ; Elijah thought that the Lord had 
come, but the Lord was not in the wind. After the 
wind came the thunder and the lightning, but God 
was not there. Then came the earthquake : the 
earth belched forth fire, the rocks were shattered, 
the mountain was rent to its foundations ; Elijah 
looked for the Lord, but the Lord was not in the 
earthquake. Then, in the calm that followed, a 
gentle breeze came to the prophet, bearing the fresh- 
ness of the fields ; and Elijah knew that God was 
there. It is a magnificent illustration of the words, 
" JResist not evil.'' 

They are very simple, these words ; but they are, 
nevertheless, the expression of a law divine and 
human. If there has been in history a progressive 
movement for the suppression of evil, it is due to 
the men who understood the doctrine of Jesus — 
who endured evil, and resisted not evil by violence. 
The advance of humanity towards righteousness is 
due, not to the tyrants, but to the martyrs. As fire 
cannot extinguish fire, so evil cannot suppress evil. 
Good alone, confronting evil and resisting its con- 
tagion, can overcome evil. And in the inner world 
of the human soul, the law is as absolute as it was 
for the hearers by Galilee, more absolute, more clear, 



MY RELIGION. 49 

more immutable. Men may turn aside from it, they 
may hide its truth from others ; but the progress of 
humanity towards righteousness can only be attained 
in this way. Ever}^ step must be guided by the 
command, '•^Resist not evil.'* A disciple of Jesus 
may say now, with greater assurance than they of 
Galilee, in spite of misfortunes and threats : " And 
yet it is not violence, but good, that overcomes evil." 
If the progress is slow, it is because the doctrine of 
Jesus (which, through its clearness, simplicit}^, and 
wisdom, appeals so inevitably to human nature), 
because the doctrine of Jesus has been cunningly 
concealed from the majority of mankind under an 
entirely different doctrine falsely called by his name. 



CHAPTER V. 

THE true meaning of the docti'ine of Jesus was 
revealed to me ; everything confirmed its truth. 
But for a long time I could not accustom mj^self to 
the strange fact, that after the eighteen centuries 
during which the law of Jesus had been professed by 
millions of human beings, after the eighteen centuries 
during which thousands of men had consecrated their 
lives to the stud}' of this law, I had discovered it 
for myself anew. But strange as it seemed, so it 
was. Jesus' law, ^'■Resist not evil," was to me wholly 
new, something of which I had never had any con- 
ception before. I asked myself how this could be ; 
I must certainly have had a false idea of the doctrine 
of Jesus to cause such a misunderstanding. And a 
false idea of it I unquestionably had. When I began 
to read the Gospel, I was not in the condition of one 
who, having heard nothing of the doctrine of Jesus, 
becomes acquainted with it for the first time ; on the 
contrary, I had a preconceived theory as to the man- 
ner in which I ought to understand it. Jesus did not 
appeal to me as a prophet revealing the divine law, 
but as one who continued and amplified the absolute 
divine law which I already knew ; for I had very 
definite and complex notions about God, the creator 



MY BELIGION. 51 

of the world and of man, and about the command- 
ments of God given to men through the iustrumen- 
taUty of Moses. 

When I came to the words, " Ye have heard that 
it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a 
tooth: But I say unto you, Tliat ye resist not evil,'' — 
the words, "^n eye for an eye, and a tooth for a 
tooth,'' expressed the law given by God to Moses ; 
the words, ''But I say unto you, TJiat ye resist not 
evil," expressed the new law, which was a negation 
of the first. If I had seen Jesus' words, simply, in 
their true sense, and not as a part of the theological 
theory that I had imbibed at my mother's breast, I 
should have understood immediately that Jesus 
abrogated the old law, and substituted for it a new 
law. But I had been taught that Jesus did not 
abrogate the law of Moses, that, on the contrary, 
he confirmed it to the slightest iota, and that he 
made it more complete. Verses 17-20 of the fifth 
chapter of Matthew always impressed me, when I 
read the Gospel, by their obscurity, and they plunged 
me into doubt. I knew the Old Testament, partic- 
ularly the last books of Moses, very thoroughly, and 
recalling certain passages in which minute doctrines, 
often absurd and even cruel in their purport, are 
preceded by the words, "And the Lord said unto 
Moses," it seemed to me very singular that Jesus 
should confirm all these injunctions ; I could not 
understand why he did so. But I allowed the ques- 
tion to pass without solution, and accepted with 
confidence the explanations inculcated in my infancy, 



52 MY religion: 

— that the two laws were equally inspired by the 
Holy Spirit, that they were in perfect accord, and 
that Jesus confirmed the law of Moses while com- 
pleting and amplifying it. I did not concern myself 
with accounting for the process of this amplification, 
with the solution of the contradictions apparent 
throughout . the whole Gospel, in verses 17-20 of 
the fifth chapter, in the words, '■'- But I say unto 
you.'* 

Now that I understood the clear and simple mean- 
ing of the doctrine of Jesus, I saw clearly that the 
two laws are directly opposed to one another ; that 
they can never be harmonized ; that, instead of sup- 
plementing one by the other, we must inevitably 
choose between the two ; and that the received ex- 
planation of the verses, Matthew v. 17-20, which had 
impressed me b}' their obscurity, must be incorrect. 

When I now came to read once more the verses 
that had before impressed me as obscure, I was 
astonished at the clear and simple meaning which 
was suddenly revealed to me. This meaning was 
revealed, not by any combination and transposition, 
but solely by rejecting the factitious explanations 
with which the words had been encumbered. Ac- 
cording to Matthew, Jesus said (v. 17-18) : — 

" Tliink not that I am come to destroy the laio, or 
the prophets (the doctrine of the prophets) : I am 
not come to destroy^ hut to fulfil. For verily I say 
unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one 
tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till cdl be 
fulfilled." 



3IY RELIGION. 53 

And in verse 20 he added : — 

"jPor I say unto you, That except your righteous- 
ness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and 
Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom 
of heaven.'' 

I am not come (Jesus said) to destroy the eternal 
law of whose fulfilment your books of prophec}^ fore- 
tell. I am come to teach you the fulfilment of the 
eternal law ; not of the law that your scribes and 
Pharisees call the divine law, but of that eternal 
law which is more immutable than the earth and the 
heavens. 

I have expressed the idea in other words in order 
to detach the thoughts of my readers from the tradi- 
tional false interpretation. If this false interpreta- 
tion had never existed, the idea expressed in the 
verses could not be rendered in a better or more 
definite manner. 

The view that Jesus did not abrogate the old law 
arises from the arbitrary conclusion that "law" in 
this passage signifies the written law instead of the 
law eternal, the reference to the iota — jot and tittle 
— perhaps furnishing the grounds for such an opin- 
ion. But if Jesus had been speaking of the written 
law, he would have used the expression "the law 
and the prophets," which he always employed in 
speaking of the written law ; here, however, he uses 
a different expression, — "the law or the prophets." 
If Jesus had meant the written law, he would have 
used the expression, "the law and the prophets," in 
the verses that follow and that continue the thought ; 



54 31 Y RELIGION. 

but he says, briefly, "the law." Moreover, accord- 
ing to Luke, Jesus made use of the same phraseology, 
and the context renders the meaning inevitable. 
According to Luke, Jesus said to the Pharisees, who 
assumed the justice of their written law : — 

"Ye are they which justify yourselves before raen; 
but God knoiueth your hearts : for that ichich is highly 
esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of 
God. The law and the prophets luere until John : 
since that time the kingdom of God is preached^ and 
every man presseth into it. And it is easier for 
heaven and earth to pass., than one tittle of the law to 
fail.'' (Luke xvi. 15-17.) 

In the words, '-'•The law and the prophets were 
until John^'' Jesus abrogated the written law ; in the 
words, '■'•And it is easier for heaven and earth to 
pass, than one tittle of the law to fail," Jesus con- 
firmed the law eternal. In the first passage cited he 
said, " the law and the prophets," that is, the writ- 
ten law ; in the second he said "the law" simply, 
therefore the law eternal. It is clear, then, that the 
eternal law is opposed to the written law,^ exactly 
as in the context of Matthew where the eternal law 
is defined by the phrase, "the law or the prophets." 

1 More than this, as if to do away with all doubt about the 
law to which he referred, Jesus cites immediately, in connec- 
tion with this passage, the most decisive instance of the negation 
of the law of Moses by the eternal law, the law of which not the 
smallest jot is to fail: "Whosoever putteth aioay his loife, and 
marrieth another, committeth adultery." (Luke xvi. 18.) That 
is, according to the written law divorce is permissible ; according 
to the eternal law it is forbidden. 



31 Y RELIGION. 55 

The history of the variants of the text of these 
verses is quite worthy of notice. The majority of 
texts have simply "the law," without the addition, 
" and the prophets," thus avoiding a false interpre- 
tation in the sense of the written law. In other 
texts, notably that of Tischendorf, and in the canon- 
ical versions, we find the word "prophets" used, 
not with the conjunction "and," but with the con- 
junction "or," — "the law or the prophets," — which 
also excludes any question of the written law, and 
indicates, as the proper signification, the law eternal. 
In several other versions, not countenanced by the 
Church, we find the word "prophets" used with the 
conjunction "and," not with "or"; and in these 
versions every repetition of the words " the law " is 
followed by the phrase, " and the prophets," which 
would indicate that Jesus spoke onW of the written 
law. 

The history of the commentaries on the passage 
in question coincides with that of the variants. The 
only clear meaning is that authorized by Luke, — 
that Jesus spoke of the eternal law. But among the 
copyists of the Gospel were some who desired that 
the written law of Moses should continue to be re- 
garded as obligatory. The}^ therefore added to the 
words "the law "the phrase "and the prophets," 
and thereb}^ changed the interpretation of the text. 

Other Christians, not recognizing to the same de- 
gree the authorit}^ of the books of Moses, suppressed 
the added phrase, and replaced the particle Kat', 
"and," with -5, "or" ; and with this substitution the 



56 MY BELIGIOy. 

passage was admitted to the canon. Nevertheless, 
in spite of the unequivocal clearness of the text as 
thus written, the commentators perpetuated the in- 
terpretation supported by the phrase which had been 
rejected in the canon. The passage evoked innum- 
erable comments, which stray from the true signifi- 
cation in proportion to the lack, on the part of the 
commentators, of fidelity to the simple and ob^dous 
meaning of Jesus' doctrine. Most of them recog- 
nize the reading rejected by the canonical text. 

To be absolutel}'' convinced that Jesus spoke only 
of the eternal law, we need only examine the true 
meaning of the word which has given rise to so 
many false interpretations. The word "law" (in 
Greek vofios, in Hebrew ^mri? torali) has in all 
languages two principal meanings : one, law in the 
abstract sense, independent of formulae ; the other, 
the written statutes which men generally recognize 
as law. In the Greek of Paul's Epistles the distinc- 
tion is indicated by the use of the article. Without 
the article Paul uses vo/xos the most frequently in the 
sense of the divine eternal law. By the ancient 
Hebrews, as in books of Isaiah and the other 
prophets, ^^i^HID' ioraJi^ is always used in the sense 
of an eternal revelation, a divine intuition. It was 
not till the time of Esdras, and later in the Talmud, 
that " Torah " was used in the same sense in which 
we use the word "Bible" — with this difference, 
that while we have words to distinguish between the 
Bible and the divine law, the Jews employed the 
same word to express both meanings. 



MY RELIGION. 57 

And so Jesus sometimes speaks of law as tbe 
divine law (of Isaiah and the other prophets), in 
which case he confirms it ; and sometimes in the 
sense of the written law of the Pentateuch, in which 
case he rejects it. To distinguish the difference, he 
always, in speaking of the written law, adds, " and 
the prophets," or prefixes the word " your," — "your 
law." 

When he says : ' ' Therefore all things ivhatso- 
ever ye looidd that men should do to you, do ye even 
so to them : for this is the law and the prophets " 
(Matt. vii. 12), he speaks of the written law. 
The entire written law, he says, may be reduced to 
this expression of the eternal law, and by these 
words he abrogated the eternal law. When he says, 
" The law and the prophets icere until John" (Luke 
xvi. 16), he speaks of the written law, and abrogates 
it. When he says, ''Did not Moses give you the law, 
and yet none of you keepeth the law " (John vii. 19), 
''It is also written in your law'' (John viii. 17), 
'* that the word might be fulfilled that is written in 
their law " (John xv. 25) , he speaks of the written 
law, the law whose authority he denied, the law that 
condemned him to death: "The Jews answered 
him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die " 
(John xix. 7). It is plain that this Jewish law, 
which authorized condemnation to death, was not 
the law of Jesus. But when Jesus says, "I am 
not come to destroy the law, but to teach you the 
fulfilment of the law ; for nothing of this law shall 
be changed, but all shall be fulfilled," then he 



58 MY RELIGIOX. 

speaks, not of the written law, but of the divine and 
eterual law. 

Admit that all this is merely formal proof ; admit 
that I have carefully combined contexts and vari- 
ants, and excluded everj'thiiig contrary to my 
theory ; admit that the commentators of the Church 
are clear and convincing, that, in fact, Jesus did 
not abrogate the law of Moses, but upheld it — 
admit this : then the question is, what were the 
teachings of Jesus ? 

According to the Church, he taught that he was 
the second person of the Trinity, the Son of God, 
and that he came into the world to atone by his 
death for Adam's sin. Those, however, who have 
read the Gospels know that Jesus taught nothing of 
the sort, or at least spoke but very vaguely on these 
topics. The passages in which Jesus affirms that 
lie is the second person of the Trinity, and that he 
was to atone for the sins of humanity, form a very in- 
considerable and very obscure portion of the Gospels. 
In what, then, does the rest of Jesus' doctrine con- 
sist? It is impossible to deny, for all Christians 
have recognized the fact, that the doctrine of Jesus 
aims summarily to regulate the lives of men, to 
teach them how they ought to live with regard to 
one another. But to realize that Jesus taught men 
a new way of life, we must have some idea of the 
condition of the people to whom his teachings were 
addressed. 

When we examine into the social development of 
the Russians, the English, the Chinese, the Indians, 



MY RELIGION. 69 

or even the races of insular savages, we find that 
each people invariably has certain practical rules or 
laws which govern its existence ; consequently, if 
any one would inculcate a new law, he must at the 
same time abolish the old ; in any race or nation 
this would be inevitable. Laws that we are accus- 
tomed to regard as almost sacred would assuredly 
be abrogated ; with us, perhaps, it might happen 
that a reformer who taught a new law would abolish 
only our civil laws, the official code, our administra- 
tive customs, without touching what we consider as 
our divine laws, although it is difficult to believe 
that such could be the case. But with the Jewish 
people, who had but one law, and that recognized 
as divine, — a law which enveloped life to its 
minutest details, — what could a reformer accom- 
plish if he declared in advance that the existing law 
was inviolable ? 

Admit that this argument is not conclusive, and 
try to interpret the words of Jesus as an affirmation 
of the entire Mosaic law ; in that case, who were 
the Pharisees, the scribes, the doctors of the law, 
denounced by Jesus during the whole of his minis- 
try ? Who were they that rejected the doctrine of 
Jesus and, their High Priests at their head, crucified 
him? If Jesus approved the law of Moses, where 
were the faithful followers of that law, who prac- 
tised it sincerely, and must thereby have obtained 
Jesus' approval? Is it possible that there was not 
one such? The Pharisees, we are told, constituted 
a sect ; where, then, were the righteous ? 



60 MY BELIGION. 

In the Gospel of John tlie enemies of Jesns are 
spoken of chrectly as --the Jews." They are op- 
posed to the doctrine of Jesus ; they are hostile 
because they are Jews. But it is not onl\' the Phar- 
isees and the Sadducees who figure in the Gospels 
as the enemies of Jesus : we also find mention of 
the doctors of the law, the guardians of the law of 
Moses, the scribes, the interpreters of the law, the 
ancients, those who are always considered as repre- 
sentatiyes of the people's wisdom. Jesus said, 
'-'• I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to 
repentance," to change their way of life (/AeraVoia) . 
But where were the righteous ? Was Nicodemus the 
only one? He is represented as a good, but mis- 
guided man. 

We are so habituated to the singular opinion that 
Jesus was crucified by the Pharisees and a number 
of Jewish shopkeepers, that we neyer think to ask. 
Where were the true Jews, the good Jews, the Jews 
that practised the law? When we haye once pro- 
pounded this query, everything becomes perfectly 
clear. Jesus, whether he was God or man, brought 
his doctrine to a people possessing rules, called the 
diyine law, goyerning their whole existence. How 
could Jesus ay old denouncing that law ? 

Eyery prophet, every founder of a religion, inev- 
itably meets, in revealing the divine law to men, 
with institutions which are regarded as upheld by 
the laws of God. He cannot, therefore, avoid a 
double use of the word "law," which expresses 
what his hearers wrongfully consider the law of God 



MY religion: 61 

("your law") , and the law he has come to proclaim, 
the true law, the divine and eternal law. A re- 
former not onlj^ cannot avoid the use of the word in 
this manner ; often he does not wish to avoid it, but 
purposely confounds the two ideas, thus indicating 
that, in the law confessed by those whom he would 
convert, there are still some eternal truths. Every 
reformer takes these ti'uths, so well known to his 
hearers, as the basis of his teaching. This is pre- 
cisely what Jesus did in addressing the Jews, by 
whom the two laws were vaguely grouped together 
as " Tor ah." Jesus recognized that the Mosaic 
law, and still more the prophetical books, especially 
the writings of Isaiah, whose words he constantly 
quotes, — Jesus recognized that these contained 
divine and eternal truths in harmony with the eter- 
nal law, and these he takes as the basis of his own 
doctrine. This method was many times referred to 
b}' Jesus ; thus he said, " Wiat is ivritten in the laiv? 
how reddest thou?" (Luke x. 26). That is, one 
may find eternal truth in the law, if one reads it 
aright. And more than once he affirms that the 
commandments of the Mosaic law, to love the Lord 
and one's neighbor, are also commandments of the 
eternal law. At the conclusion of the parables by 
which Jesus explained the meaning of his doctrine 
to his disciples, he pronounced words that have a 
bearing upon all that precedes : — 

''^Therefore every scribe tchich is instructed unto the 
kingdom of heaven (the truth) is like unto a man that 
is ahouseholder, which bringeth forth out of his treas- 



62 MT RELIGION. 

tire (without distinction) things new and old." 
(Matt. xiii. 52.) 

The Ciiurch understands these words, as they 
were understood by Ii'enseus ; but at the same time, 
in defiance of the true signification, it arbitrarily 
attributes to them the meaning that everything old 
is sacred. The manifest meaning is this : He who 
seeks for the good, takes not only the new, but also 
the old; and because a thing is old, he does not 
therefore reject it. By these words Jesus meant 
that he did not deny wbat was eternal in the old law. 
But when they spoke to him of the whole law, or of 
the formalities exacted by the old law, his repl}' was 
that new wine should not be put into old bottles. 
Jesus could not aflflrm the whole law ; neither could 
he deny the entire teachings of the law and the 
prophets, — the law which says, '''•love thy neighbor 
as thyself," the prophets whose words often served 
to express his own thoughts. And 3'et, in place of 
this clear and simple explanation of Jesus' words, 
we are offered a vague interpretation which intro- 
duces needless contradictions, which reduces the 
doctrine of Jesus to nothingness, and which re-es- 
tablishes the doctrine of Moses in all its savage 
cruelty. 

Commentators of the Church, particularly those 
who have written since the fifth century, tell us that 
Jesus did not abolish the written law ; that, on the 
contrar\^, he aflfirmed it. But in what way? How 
is it possible that the law of Jesus should harmonize 
with the law of Moses ? To these inquuies we get 



MY RELIGION. 63 

no response. The commentators all make use of a 
verbal juggle to the effect that Jesus fulfilled the law 
of JNIoses, and that the sayings of the prophets were 
fulfilled in his person ; that Jesus fulfilled the law as 
our mediator by our faith in him. And the essen- 
tial question for every believer — How to harmon- 
ize two conflicting laws, each designed to regulate 
the lives of men ? — is left without the slightest at- 
tempt at explanation. Thus the contradiction be- 
tween the verse where it is said that Jesus did not 
come to destro}' the law, but to fulfil the law, and 
Jesus' saying, " Ye have heard that it hath been sakl^ 
An €7/6 for an eye . . . But I say unto you,'' — the 
contradiction between the doctrine of Jesus and the 
very spirit of the Mosaic doctrine, — is left without 
any mitigation. 

Let those who are interested in the question look 
through the Church commentaries touching this pas- 
sage from the time of Chrysostom to our day. After 
a perusal of the voluminous explanations offered, 
they will be convinced not only of the complete 
absence of any solution for the contradiction, bat of 
the presence of a new, factitious contradiction 
arising in its place. Let us see what Chrysostom 
says in reply to those who reject the law of 
Moses : — 

" He made this law, not that we might strike out 
one another's eyes, but that fear of suflfering by 
others might restrain us from doing any such thing 
to them. As therefore He threatened the Ninevites 
with overthrow, not that He might destroy them 



^^ 31 Y RELIGIOy. 



(for had that been His will, He ouo-ht to have been 
silent), but that He might by fear make them 
better, and so quiet His wrath : so also hath He 
appointed a punishment for those who wantonly 
assail the eyes of others, that if good principle dis- 
pose them not to refrain from such cruelty, fear may 
restrain them from injuring their neighbors' sight. 

"And if this be cruelty, it is cruelty also for the 
mm-derer to be restrained, and the adulterer checked 
But these are the sayings of senseless men, and of 
those that are mad to the extreme of madness. For 
I, so far from saying that this comes of cruelty, 
should say that the contrary to this would be unlaw- 
ful, according to men's reckoning. And whereas 
thou sayest, ' Because He commanded to pluck out 
an eye for an eye, therefore He is cruel' ; I say that 
if He had not given this commandment, then He 
would have seemed, in the judgment of most men, 
to be that which thou sayest He is." 

Chrysostom clearly recognized the law. An eye for 
an eye, as divine, and the contrary of that law, that 
IS, the doctrine of Jesus, Resist not evil, as an iniq- 
uity. " For let us suppose," says Chrysostom fur- 
ther ; — 

" For let us suppose that this law had been alto- 
gether done away, and that no one feared the pun- 
ishment ensuing thereupon, but that license had 
been given to all the wicked to follow their own dis- 
positions in all security, to adulterers, and to mur- 
derers, to perjured persons, and to parricides ; would 
not all things have been turned upside down? would 



3IY RELIGION. 65 

not cities, market-places and houses, sea and land, 
and the whole world have been filled with unnum- 
bered pollutions and murders ? Every one sees it. 
For if, when there are laws, and fear, and threaten- 
ing, our evil dispositions are hardly checked ; were 
even this security taken away, what is there to pre- 
vent men's choosing vice ? and what degree of m-is- 
chief would not then come revelling upon the whole 
of human life ? 

" The rather, since cruelty lies not only in allow- 
ing the bad to do what they will, but in another 
thing too quite as much, — to overlook, and leave 
uncared for, him who hath done no wrong, but who 
is without cause or reason suffering ill. For tell 
me ; were any one to gather together wicked men 
from all quarters, and arm them with swords, and 
bid them go about the whole city, and massacre all 
that came in their way, could there be anything 
more like a wild beast than he ? And what if some 
others should bind, and confine with the utmost 
strictness, those whom that man had armed, and 
should snatch from those lawless hands them who 
were on the point of being butchered ; could any- 
thing be greater humanity than this ? " 

Chrysostom does not say what would be the esti- 
mate of these others in the opinion of the wicked. 
And what if these others were themselves wicked 
and cast the innocent into prison? Chrysostom 
continues : — 

" Now then, I bid thee transfer these examples to 
the Law likewise ; for He that commands to pluck 



66 MY RELIGIOX. 

out an eye for an eye hath laid the fear as a kind of 
strong chain upon the souls of the bad. and so 
resembles him who detains those assassins in prison ; 
whereas he who appoints no punishment for them, 
doth all but arm them by such security, and acts the 
part of that other, who was putting the swords in 
their hands, and letting them loose over the whole 
city." (•' Homilies on the Gospel of St. Matthew." 
x^'i.) 

If Chrysostom had understood the law of Jesus, 
he would have said, Who is it that stiikes out 
another's eyes ? who is it that casts men into jorison ? 
If God, who made the law, does this, then there is 
no conti'adiction ; but it is men who carry out the 
decrees, and the Son of God has said to men that 
they must abstain from violence. God commanded 
to strike out, and the Son of God commanded not to 
strike out. TTe must accept one commandment or 
the other ; and Chrysostom, like all the rest of the 
Church, accepted the commandment of Moses and 
denied that of the Christ, whose doctrine lie never- 
theless claims to believe. 

Jesus abolished the Mosaic law, and gave his own 
law in its place. To one who re all}' believes in 
Jesus there is not the slightest conti'adiction ; such 
an one will pay no attention to the law of Moses, 
but will practise the law of Jesus, which he believes. 
To one who believes in the law of Moses there is no 
contradiction. The Jews looked upon the words of 
Jesus as foolishness, and believed in the law of 
Moses. The contradiction is onlv for those who 



MY religion: 67 

would follow the law of Moses under the cover of 
the law of Jesus — for those whom Jesus denounced 
as h3'pocrites, as a generation of vipers. 

Instead of recognizing as divine truth the one or 
the other of the two laws, the law of Moses or that 
of Jesus, we recognize the divine quality of both. 
But when the question comes with regard to the acts 
of every-day life, we reject the law of Jesus and 
follow that of Moses. And this false interpretation, 
when we realize its importance, reveals the source 
of that terrible drama which records the struggle 
between evil and good, between darkness and light. 

To the Jewish people, trained to the innumerable 
formal regulations instituted by the Levites in the 
rubric of divine laws, each preceded by the words, 
*' And the Lord said unto Moses" — to the Jewish 
people Jesus appeared. He found everything, to 
the minutest detail, prescribed by rule ; not only the 
relation of man with God, but his sacrifices, his 
feasts, his fasts, his social, civil, and family duties, 
the details of personal habits, circumcision, the puri- 
fication of the body, of domestic utensils, of cloth- 
ing — all these regulated by laws recognized as com- 
mandments of God, and therefore as divine. 

Excluding the question of Jesus' divine mission, 
what could any prophet or reformer do who wished 
to establish his own doctrines among a people so 
enveloped in formalism — what but abolisli the law 
by which all these details were regulated ? Jesus 
selected from what men considered as the law of 
God the portions which were really divine ; he took 



68 MT RELIGION. 

what served his purpose, rejected the rest, and upon 
this foundation established the eternal law. It was 
not necessary to abolish all, but inevitable to abro- 
gate much that was looked upon as obhgatory. This 
Jesus did, and was accused of destroying the divine 
law j for this he was condemned and put to death. 
But his doctrine was cherished by his disciples, 
traversed the centuries, and is transmitted to other 
peoples. Under these conditions it is again hidden 
beneath heterogeneous dogmas, obscure comments, 
and factitious explanations. Pitiable human soph-' 
isms replace the divine revelation. For the form- 
ula, "And the Lord said unto Moses," we substi- 
tute " Thus saith the Holy Spirit." And again for- 
malism hides the truth. Most astounding of all, the 
doctrine of Jesus is amalgamated with the written 
law, whose authority he was forced to deny. This 
Tor all ^ this written law, is declared to have been 
inspired by the Holy Spirit, the spmt of truth ; and 
thus Jesus is taken in the snare of his own revela- 
tion — his doctrine is reduced to nothiugness. 

This is why, after eighteen hundred 3'ears, it so 
singularl}' happened that I discovered the meaning 
of the doctrine of Jesus as some new thiug. But 
no ; I did not discover it ; I did simply what all 
must do who seek after God and His law ; I sought 
for the eternal law amid the incongruous elements 
that men call by that name. 



CHAPTER VI. 

WHEN I understood the law of Jesus as the 
law of Jesus, and not as the law of Jesus 
and of Moses, when I understood the commandment 
of this law which absolutely abrogated the law of 
Moses, then the Gospels, before to me so obscure, 
diffuse, and contradictory, blended into a harmoni- 
ous whole, the substance of whose doctrine, until 
then incomprehensible, I found to be formulated in 
terms simple, clear, and accessible to every searcher 
after truth, i 

Throughout the Gospels we are called upon to 
consider the commandments of Jesus and the neces- 
sity of practising them. All the theologians dis- 
cuss the commandments of Jesus ; but what are 
these commandments ? I did not know before. I 
thought that the commandment of Jesus was to love 
God, and one's neighbor as one's self. I did not 
see that this could not be a new commandment of 
Jesus, since it was given by them of old in Deuter- 
onomy and Leviticus. The words : — 

" Whosoeveo^ tlierefore shall break one of these least 
commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be 
called the least in the kingdom of heaven : but luhoso- 

1 Matt. V. 21^8, especially 38. 



70 MY RELIGION. 

ever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called 
great in the kingdom of heaven," (Matt. v. 19.) — 
these words I believed to relate to the Mosaic law. 
But it never had occurred to me that Jesus had 
propounded, clearly and precisely, new laws. I 
did not see that in the passage where Jesus declares, 
' ' Te have heard that it luas said . . . But I say unto 
you," he formulated a series of very definite com- 
mandments — five entirely new, counting as one the 
two references to the ancient law against adultery- . 
I had heard of the beatitudes of Jesus and of their 
number ; their explanation and enumeration had 
formed a part of my religious instruction ; but the 
commandments of Jesus — I had never heard them 
spoken of. To my great astonishment, I now dis- 
covered them for myself. In the fifth chapter of 
Matthew I found these verses : — 

' ' Ye have heard that it was said by them of old 
time. Thou shalt not kill; and lohosoever shall kill 
shcdlbein danger of the judgment: Bat I say unto 
you, That lohosoever is angry luith his brother without 
a cause shcdl be in danger of the judgment : and who- 
soever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in dan- 
ger of the council: but whosoever shall say. Thou 
fool, shcdl be in danger of the Gehenna of fire. 
Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there 
rememberest that thy brother hath aught against thee; 
Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way ; 
first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and 
offer thy gift. Agree tuith thine adversary quickly, 
while thou art in the way with him ; lest at any time 



MT RELIGION. 71 

the adversary deliver thee to the judge ^ and the judge 
deliver thee to the officer^ and thoa be cast into i^risoii. 
Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come 
out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing ." 
(Matt. V. 21-26.) 

When I understood the commandment, '''•Resist 
not evil,*^ it seemed to me that these verses must 
have a meaning as clear and intelligible as has the 
commandment just cited. The meaning I had for- 
merly given to the passage was, that every one 
ought to avoid angry feelings against others, onght 
never to utter abusive language, and ought to live in 
peace with all men, without exception. But there 
was in the text a phrase which excluded this mean- 
ing, "Whosoever shall be angry with his brother 
icithout a cause" — the words could not then be 
an exhortation to absolute peace. I was greatly 
perplexed, and I turned to the commentators, the 
theologians, for the removal of my doubts. To my 
surprise I found that the commentators were chiefly 
occupied with the endeavor to define under what 
conditions anger was permissible. All the commen- 
tators of the Church dwelt upon the qualifying 
phrase " toithout a cause," and explained the mean- 
ing to be that one must not be offended without a 
reason, that one must not be abusive, but that anger 
is not always unjust ; and, to confirm their view, 
they quoted instances of anger on the part of saints 
and apostles. I saw plainly that the commentators 
who authorized anger " for the glory of God" as 
not reprehensible, although entirely contrary to the 



72 3IY RELIGION. 

spirit of the Gospel, based their argument on the 
phrase "without a cause," in the twent^'-seconcl 
verse. These words change eutirel}' the meaning of 
the passage. 

Be not angry without cause ? Jesus exhorts us to 
pardon every one, to pardon without restriction or 
limit. He pardoned all who did him wrong, and 
chided Peter for being angry with Malchus when the 
former sought to defend his Master at the time of 
the betrayal, when, if at any time, it would seem 
that anger might have been justifiable. And yet 
did. this same Jesus formally teach men not to be 
angry "without a cause," and thereby sanction 
anger for a cause? Did Jesus enjoin peace upon all 
men, and then, in the phi'ase "without a cause," 
interpolate the reservation that this rule did not 
apply to all cases ; that there were circumstances 
under which one might be angry with a brother, and 
so give the commentators the right to say that anger 
is sometimes expedient? 

But who is to decide when anger is expedient and 
when it is not expedient? I never 3-et encountered 
an angry person who did not believe his wrath to be 
justifiable. Every one who is angry thinks anger 
legitimate and serviceable. Evidently the qualify- 
ing phrase "without a cause" destro3's the entire 
force of the verse. And yet there were the words 
in the sacred text, and I could not efface them. 
The effect was the same as if the word ' ' good " had 
been added to the phi-ase. "Love thy neighbor" — 
love thy good neighbor, the neighbor that agrees 
with thee ! 



MY RELIGION. 73 

The entire signification of the passage was changed 
by this phrase, "without a cause." Verses 23 and 
24, which exhort us to be reconciled with all men 
before appealing for divine aid, also lost their direct 
and imperative meaning and acquired a conditional 
import through the influence of the foregoing quali- 
fication. It had seemed to me, however, that Jesus 
forbade all anger, all evil sentiment, and, that it 
might not continue in our hearts, exhorted us before 
entering into communion with God to ask ourselves 
if there were any person who might be angry with 
us. If such were the case, whether this anger were 
with cause or without cause, he commanded us to 
be reconciled. In this manner I had interpreted the 
passage ; but it now seemed, according to the com- 
mentators, that the injunction must be taken as a 
conditional affirmation. The commentators all ex- 
plained that we ought to try to be at peace with 
everybody ; but, they added, if this is impossible, 
if, actuated by evil instincts, any one is at enmity 
with you, try to be reconciled with him in spirit, in 
idea, and then the enmity of others will be no obsta- 
cle to divine communion. 

Nor was this all. The words, " Whosoever shall 
say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the 
council," always seemed to me strange and absurd. 
If we are forbidden to be abusive, why this example 
with its ordinary and harmless epithet ; why this 
terrible threat against those that utter abuse so fee- 
ble as that implied in the word raca, which means a 
good-for-nothing? All this was obscure to me. 



74 MT religion: 

I was convinced that I had before me a problem 
simikir to that which had confronted me in the 
words, '''•Judge not." I felt that here again the sim- 
ple, grand, precise, and practical meaning of Jesus 
had been hidden, and that the commentators were 
groping in gloom. It seemed to me that Jesus, in 
saying, " be reconciled to thy brother," could not have 
meant, "be reconciled in idea," — an explanation 
not at all clear, supposing it were true. I under- 
stood what Jesus meant when, using the words of 
the prophet, he said, "J icill have mercy, and not 
sacrifice;" that is, I will that men shall love one 
another. If you would have your acts acceptable to 
God, then, before offering prayer, interrogate your 
conscience ; and if you find that any one is angry 
with you, go and make your peace with him, and 
then pray as 3'ou desire. After this clear interpre- 
tation, what was I to understand by the comment, 
" be reconciled in idea " ? 

I saw that what seemed to me the only clear and 
dii-ect meaning of the verse was destroj-ed by the 
phrase, "without a cause." If I could eliminate 
that, there would be no diflSculty in the way of a 
lucid interpretation. But all the commentators were 
united against any such course ; and the canonical 
text authorized the rendering to which I objected. 
I could not drop these words arbitrarily, and yet, if 
they were excluded, ever3'thing would become clear. 
I therefore sought for some interpretation which 
would not conflict with the sense of the entu-e pas- 
sage. 



31 T religion: 75 

I consulted the dictionary. In ordinary Greek, 
the word elKrj means " heedlessly-, inconsiderately." 
I tried to find some term that would not destroy the 
sense; but the words, "without a cause," plainly 
had the meaning attributed to them. In New Tes- 
tament Greek the signification of iUrj is exactly the 
same. I consulted the concordances. The word 
occurs but once in the Gospels, namely, in this pas- 
sage. In the first epistle to the Corinthians, xv. 2, 
it occurs in exactly the same sense. It is impossi- 
ble to interpret it otherwise, and if we accept it, 
we must conclude that Jesus uttered in vague words 
a commandment easily so construed as to be of no 
effect. To admit this seemed to me equivalent to 
rejecting the entire Gospel. There remained one 
more resource — was the word to be found in all the 
manuscripts? I consulted Griesbach, who records 
all recognized variants, and discovered to my joy 
that the passage in question was not invariable, and 
that the variation depended upon the word etKrj. In 
most of the Gospel texts and the citations of the 
Fathers, this word does not occur. I consulted 
Tischendorf for the most ancient reading : the word 
€LKrj did not appear. 

This word, so destructive to the meaning of the 
doctrine of Jesus, is then an interpolation which had 
not crept into the best copies of the Gospel as late 
as the fifth century. Some copyist added the word ; 
others approved it and undertook its explanation. 
Jesus did not utter, could not have uttered, this 
terrible word ; and the primary meaning of the pas- 



76 MY RELIGION. 

sage, its simple, direct, impressive meaning, is the 
true interpretation. 

Now that I understood Jesus to forbid anger, what- 
ever the cause, and without distinction of persons, 
the warning against the use of the words "raca" and 
" fool" had a purport quite distinct from any prohi- 
bition with regard to the utterance of abusive epi- 
thets. The strange Hebrew word, raca, which is 
not translated in the Greek text, serves to reveal 
the meaning. JRaca means, literally, "vain, empty, 
that which does not exist." It was much used by 
the Hebrews to express exclusion. It is employed 
in the plural form in Judges ix. 4, in the sense, 
" empty and vain." This word Jesus forbids us to 
apply to any one, as he forbids us to use the word 
"fool," which, like "raca," relieves us of all the 
obligations of humanit3^ We get angry, we do evil 
to men, and then to excuse oiirselves we say that 
the object of our anger is an empt}-^ person, the 
refuse of a man, a fool. It is precisely such words 
as these that Jesus forbids us to apply to men. He 
exhorts us not to be angry with any one, and not to 
excuse our anger with the plea that we have to do 
with a vain person, a person bereft of reason. 

And so in place of insignificant, vague, and un- 
certain phrases subject to arbitrary interpretation, I 
found in Matthew v. 21-26 the first commandment 
of Jesus : Live in peace with all men. Do not re- 
gard auger as justifiable under au}^ circumstances. 
Never look upon a human being as worthless or ns 
a fool. Not only refrain from anger yourself, but 



MT RELIGION. 77 

do not regard the anger of others toward you as 
vain. If any one is angry with you, even without 
reason, be reconciled to him, that all hostile feelings 
may be effaced. Agree quickly with those that have 
a grievance against you, lest animosity prevail to 
3'our loss. 

The first commandment of Jesus being thus freed 
from obscurity, I was able to understand the second, 
which also begins with a reference to the ancient 
law: — 

"Ye have heard that it was said by them of old 
time, TIiou shalt not commit adidtery : But I say unto 
you, Tliat ivhosoever looketh on a ivoman to lust after 
her hath committed adidtery icith her already in his 
heart. And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, 
and cast it from thee : for it is profitable for thee that 
one of thy members should perish, and not that thy 
ivhole body should be cast into hell. And if thy right 
hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for 
it is profitable for thee that one of thy members shoidd 
perish, and not that thy ichole body should be cast into 
hell. It hath been said,^ Whosoever shall p)ut aicay 
his tvife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth 
her to commit adultery : and ichosoever shcdl marry 
her that is divorced committeth adultery. (Matt. v. 
27-32.) 

By these words I understood that a man ought 

not, even in imagination, to admit that he could 

approach any woman save her to whom he had once 

been united, and her he might never abandon to 

1 Deut. xxiv. 1. 



78 MY RELIGION. 

take another, although permitted to do so by the 
Mosaic law. 

In the first commandment, Jesus counselled us to 
extinguish the germ of anger, and illustrated his 
meaning by the fate of the man who is delivered to 
the judges ; in the second commandment, Jesus 
declares that debauchery arises from the disposition 
of men and women to regard one another as instru- 
ments of voluptuousness, and, this being so, we 
ought to guard against every idea that excites to 
sensual deshe, and, once united to a woman, never 
to abandon her on any pretext, for women thus 
abandoned are sought by other men, and so debauch- 
ery is introduced into the world. 

The wisdom of this commandment impressed me 
profoundly. It would suppress aU the evils in the 
world that result from the sexual relations. Con- 
vinced that license in the sexual relations leads to 
contention, men, in obedience to this injunction, 
would avoid every cause for voluptuousness, and, 
knowing that the law of humanity is to live in 
couples, would so unite themselves, and never 
destroy the bond of union. AU the evils arising 
from dissensions caused by sexual attraction would 
be suppressed, since there would be neither men nor 
women deprived of the sexual relation. 

But I was much more impressed, as I read the 
Sermon on the Mount, with the words, " Saving tor 
the cause of fornication," which permitted a man to 
repudiate his wife in case of infidelity. The very 
form in which the idea was expressed seemed to me 



MY RELIGION. 79 

unworthy of the dignity of the occasion, for here, side 
by side with the profound truths of the Sermon on 
the Mount, occurred, like a note in a criminal code, 
this strange exception to the general rule ; but I 
shall not dwell upon the question of form ; I shall 
speak only of the exception itself, so entirely in 
contradiction with the fundamental idea. 

I consulted the commentators ; all, Chrysostom 
and the others, even authorities on exegesis like 
Eeuss, all recognized the meaning of the words to 
be that Jesus permitted divorce in case of infidelity 
on the part of the woman, and that, in the exhorta- 
tion against divorce in the nineteenth chapter of 
Matthew, the same words had the same signification. 
I read the thirty-second verse of the fifth chapter 
again and again, and reason refused to accept the 
interpretation. To verify m}- doubts I consulted the 
other portions of the New Testament texts, and I 
found in Matthew (xix.), Mark (x.), Luke (xvi.), 
and in the first epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, 
affirmation of the doctrine of the indissolubility of 
marriage. In Luke (xvi. 18) it is said : — 

" WJiosoever puttetJi aivay Ms wife^ and marrietli 
another^ committeth adultery : and ivhosoever marri- 
etli her that is put away from her husband committeth 
adultery. ^^ 

In Mark (x. 5-12) the doctrine is also proclaimed 
without 2iny exception whatever : — 

'''•For the hardness of your heart he [Moses] ivrote 
you this precept. But from the beginning of the 
creation God made them male and female. For this 



80 MY RELIGION. 

cause shall a man leave Jus father and mother^ and 
cleave to his ivife; And they twain shall he onejlesh: 
so then they are no more twain, but onejlesh. What 
therefore God hath joined together, let not man put 
asunder. And iri the house his disciples asked him 
again of the same matter. And he said unto them, 
Wliosoever shall put away his wife, and marry 
another, committeth adultery against her. And if a 
woman shall put away her husband, and be married 
to another, she committeth adidtery." 

The same idea is expressed in Matt. xix. 4-9. 
Paul, in the first epistle to the Corinthians (vii. 
1-11), develops systematically the idea that the 
only way of preventing debauchery is that every man 
have his own wife, and every woman have her own 
husband, and that tbey mutually satisfy the sexual 
instinct; then he says, without equivocation, " iei 
not the wife depaH from her husband : But and if she 
depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to 
her husband : and let not the husband put away his 
wife." 

According to Mark, and Luke, and Paul, divorce 
is forbidden. It is forbidden by the assertion 
repeated in two of the Gospels, that husband and 
wife are one flesh whom God hath joined together. 
It is forbidden by the doctrine of Jesus, who exhorts 
us to pardon every one, without excepting the adul- 
terous woman. It is forbidden by the general sense 
of the whole passage, which explains that divorce is 
provocative of debauchery, and for tins reason that 
divorce with an adulterous woman is prohibited. 



MY religion: 81 

Upon what, then, is based the opinion that divorce 
is permissible in case of infidelity on the part of the 
woman ? Upon the words which had so impressed 
me in Matt. v. 32 ; the words everj^ one takes to 
mean that Jesus permits divorce in case of adultery 
by the woman ; the words, repeated in Matt. xix. 
9, in a number of copies of the Gospel text, and 
by many Fathers of the Church, — the words, 
" unless for the cause of adultery." I studied these 
words carefully anew. For a long time I could not 
understand them. It seemed to me that there must 
be a defect in the translation, and an erroneous 
exegesis ; but where was the source of the error ? 
I could not find it ; and yet the error itself was very 
plain. 

In opposition to the Mosaic law, which declares 
that if a man take an aversion to his wife he may 
write her a bill of divorcement and send her out of 
his house — in opposition to this law Jesus is made 
to declare, '•'• But I say unto you, That tvJiosoever 
shall put aivay his tvife, saving for the cause of for- 
nication, causeth her to commit adultery." I saw 
nothing in these words to allow us to affirm that 
divorce was either permitted or forbidden. It is 
said that whoever shall put away his wife causes her 
to commit adultery, and then an exception is made 
with regard to a woman guilty of adultery. This 
exception, which throws the guilt of marital infidelity 
entirel}' upon the tvoman is, in general, strange and 
unexpected ; but here, in relation to the context, it 
is simply absurd, for even the very doubtful mean- 



82 31 T EELIGIOX. 

ing whicli might otherwise be attributed to it is 
wholly destroved. AYhoever puts away his wife 
exposes her to the crime of adultery, and yet a man 
is permitted to put away a wife guilty of adultery, 
as if a woman guilty of adultery would no more 
commit adultery- after she were put away. 

But this is not all ; when I had examined this 
passage attentiyely, I found it also to be lacking in 
grammatical meaning. The words are, " Whoeyer 
shall put away his wife, except for the fault of 
adultery, exposes her to the commission of adultery," 
— and the proposition is complete. It is a question 
of the husband, of him who in putting away his wife 
exposes her to the commission of the crime of adul- 
tery ; what, then, is the purport of the qualifying 
phrase, " except for the fault of adultery " ? If the 
proposition were in this form : Whoeyer shall put 
away his wife is guilty of adulter}', unless the wife 
herself has been unfaithful — it would be grammati- 
cally correct. But as the passage now stands, the 
subject ''whoeyer" has no other predicate than the 
word "exposes," with which the phrase "except 
for the fault of adultery " cannot be connected. 
What, then, is the purport of this phrase? It is 
plain that whether for or without the fault of adul- 
tery on the part of the woman, the husband who 
puts away his wife exposes her to the commission of 
adultery. 

The proposition is analogous to the following sen- 
tence : Whoeyer refuses food to his son, besides the 
fault of spitefulness, exposes him to the possibility 



AfT RELIGION. 83 

of being cruel. This sentence evidently cannot 
mean that a father may refuse food to his son if the 
latter is spiteful. It can only mean that a father 
who refuses food to his son, besides being spiteful 
towards his son, exposes his son to the possibility 
of becoming cruel. And in the same waj', the Gos- 
pel proposition would have a meaning if we could 
replace the words, " the fault of adultery," by liber- 
tinism, debauchery, or some similar phrase, express- 
ing not an act but a quality. 

And so I asked myself if the meaning here was 
not simply that whoever puts awa}^ his wife, besides 
being himself guilty of libertinism (since no one puts 
away his wife except to take another) , exposes his 
wife to the commission of adultery? If, in the 
original text, the word translated "adultery" or 
"fornication" had the meaning of libertinism, the 
meaning of the passage would be clear. And then 
I met with the same experience that had happened 
to me before in similar instances. The text con- 
firmed my suppositions and entirely effaced my 
doubts. 

The first thing that occurred to me in reading the 
text was that the word Tropvda, translated in common 
with fjLOLxoio-OaL, "adultery" or " fornication," is an 
entirely different word from the latter. But perhaps 
these two words are used as synonyms in the Gos- 
l)els ? I consulted the dictionary, and found that the 
word TTopyeta, corresponding in Hebrew to zanah, in 
Latin to fornicatio, in German to hurerei, in French 
to Ubertinage, has a very precise meaning, and that 



84 MY religion: 

it never has signified, and never can signify, the act 
of adultery, ehebruch^ as Luther and the Germans 
after him have rendered the word. It signifies a 
state of depravity, — a quality, and not an act, — 
and never can be properly translated by " adultery " 
or " fornication." I found, moreover, that ^' adul- 
tery " is expressed throughout the Gospel, as well 
as in the passage under consideration, by the word 
IxoLx^vo). I had only to correct the false translation, 
which had evidently been made intentionally, to 
render absolutely inadmissible the meaning attrib- 
uted by commentators to the text, and to show the 
proper gTammatical relation of -rropveia to the subject 
of the sentence. 

A person acquainted with Greek would construe 
as follows: TrapcKTos, "except, outside," Xoyov, 
" the matter, the cause," Tropvetas, " of libertinism," 
TToiet, " obliges," avTTjv, " her," ixoixdcrOat, " to be an 
adulteress " — which rendering gives, word for word. 
Whoever puts away his wife, besides the fault of 
libertinism, obliges her to be an adulteress. 

We obtain the same meaniug from Matt. xix. 9. 
When we correct the unauthorized translation of 
TTopveta, by substituting " libertinism " for " fornica- 
tion," we see at once that the phrase et fir] i-n-l iropveLa 
cannot apply to " wife." And as the words TrapeKros 
Xoyov TTopveta? could signify nothing else than the 
fault of libertinism on the part of the husband, so 
the words el' /xtj i-n-l iropveia, in the nineteenth chapter, 
can have no other than the same meaning. The 
phrase et fjurj iirl TTopveCa is, word for word, " if this is 



3/r RELIGION. 85 

not through libertinism " (to give one's self up to 
libertinism). The meaning then becomes clear. 
Jesus replies to the theory of the Pharisees, that a 
man who abandons his wife to marry another with- 
out the intention of giving himself up to libertinism 
does not commit adultery — Jesus replies to this 
theory that the abandonment of a wife, that is, the 
cessation of sexual relations, even if not for the pur- 
pose of libertinism, but to marry another, is none 
the less adultery. Thus we come at the simple 
meaning of this commandment — a meaning which 
accords with the whole doctrine, with the words of 
which it is the complement, with grammar, and with 
logic. This simple and clear interpretation, harmon- 
izing so naturally with the doctrine and the words 
from which it was derived, I discovered after the 
most careful and prolonged research. Upon a pre- 
meditated alteration of the text had been based an 
exegesis which destroyed the moral, religious, logi- 
cal, and grammatical meaning of Jesus' words. 

And thus once more I found a confirmation of the 
terrible fact that the meaning of the doctrine of 
Jesus is simple and clear, that its affirmations are 
emphatic and precise, but that commentaries upon 
the doctrine, inspired by a desire to sanction exist- 
ing evil, have so obscured it that determined effort 
is demanded of him who would know the truth. If 
the Gospels had come down to us in a fragmentary 
condition, it would have been easier (so it seemed to 
me) to restore the true meaning of the text than to 
find that meaning now, beneath the accumulations 



86 31 Y BELIGIOX. 

of fallacious comments which have apparently no 
pm-pose save to conceal the doctrine they are sup- 
posed to expound. With regard to the passage 
under consideration, it is plain that to justify the 
divorce of some Bjzantine emperor this ingenious 
pretext was employed to obscure the doctrine regu- 
lating the relations between the sexes. When we 
have rejected the suggestions of the commentators, 
we escape from the mist of uncertainty, and the 
second commandment of Jesus becomes precise and 
clear. " Guard against libertinism. Let every man 
justified in entering into the sexual relation have one 
wife, and every wife one husband, and under no 
pretext whatever let this union be violated by 
either." 

Immediately after the second commandment is 
another reference to the ancient law, followed by the 
third commandment : — 

'''•Again, ye have heard that it hath been said ^hy 
them of old time. Thou shalt notforsivear thyself, but 
shcdt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: But I say 
unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it 
is God's throne: Nor by the earth; for it is his foot- 
stool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the 
great hing. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, 
because thou canst not maJce one hair ivhite or black. 
Bat let your communications be. Yea, yea; Nay, nay: 
for ichatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.'' 
(Matt. V. 33-37.) 

1 Levit. xix. 12; Deut. xxiii. 21, 3i. 



MY RELIGION. 87 

This passage alwa3's troul)led me when I read it. 
It did not tronble me by its obscurity, like the pas- 
sage about divorce ; or by conflicting with other 
passages, Uke the authorization of anger for cause ; 
or by the difficulty in the way of obedience, as in 
the case of the command to turn the other cheek ; — 
it troubled me rather by its very clearness, sim- 
plicity, and practicality. Side by side with rules 
whose magnitude and importance I felt profoundly, 
was this saj'ing, which seemed to me superfluous, 
frivolous, weak, and without consequence to me or to 
others. I naturally did not swear, either by Jerusa- 
lem, or by heaven, or by anything else, and it cost 
me not the least effort to refrain from doing so ; on 
the other hand, it seemed to me that whether I 
swore or did not swear could not be of the slightest 
importance to any one. And desiring to find an 
explanation of this rule, which troubled me through 
its A^er}^ simplicit}', I consulted the commentators. 
They were in this case of great assistance to me. 

The commentators all found in these words a con- 
firmation of the third commandment of Moses, — 
not to swear by the name of the Lord ; but, in addi- 
tion to this, they explained that this commandment 
of Jesus against an oath was not always obligatory, 
and had no reference whatever to the oath which 
citizens are obliged to take before the authorities. 
And they brought together Scripture citations, not 
to support the direct meaning of Jesus' command- 
ment, but to prove when it ought and ought not to 
be obeyed. They claimed that Jesus had himself 



88 MT religion: 

sanctioned the oath in courts of Justice by his reply, 
" Thou hast said" to the words of the High Priest, 
" I adjure thee by the living God; " that the apostle 
Paul invoked God to witness the ti'uth of his words, 
which invocation was evidently equivalent to an 
oath ; that the law of Moses proscribing the oath 
was not abrogated by Jesus ; and that Jesus forbade 
only false oaths, the oaths of Pharisees and hypo- 
crites. When I had read these comments, I under- 
stood that unless I excepted from the oaths forbid- 
den by Jesus the oath of fidelity to the State, the 
commandment was as insignificant as superficial, 
and as easy to practise as I had supposed. 

And I asked myself the question, Does this pas- 
sage contain an exhortation to abstain from an oath 
that the commentators of the Church are so zealous 
to justify ? Does it not forbid us to take the oath 
indispensable to the assembling of men into political 
groups and the formation of a military caste ? The 
soldier, that special instrument of violence, goes in 
Russia by the nickname of prissaiaga (sworn in) . 
If I had asked the soldier at the Borovitzky Gate 
how he solved the contradiction between the Gospels 
and military regulations, he would have replied that 
he had taken the oath, that is, that he had sworn by 
the Gospels. This is the reply that soldiers always 
make. The oath is so indispensable to the hor- 
rors of war and armed coercion that in France, 
where Christianity is out of favor, the oath remains 
in full force. If Jesus did not say in so many 
words, "Do not take an oath," the prohibition 



MT RELIGION. 89 

ought to be a consequence of his teaching. He came 
to suppress evil, and, if he did not condemn the 
oath, he left a terrible evil untouched. It may be 
said, perhaps, that at the time at which Jesus lived 
this evil passed unperceived ; but this is not true. 
Epictetus and Seneca declare against the taking of 
oaths. A similar rule is inscribed in the laws of 
Mani. The Jews of the time of Jesus made pros- 
elytes, and obliged them to take the oath. How 
could it be said that Jesus did not perceive this evil 
when he forbade it in clear, direct, and circumstan- 
tial terms? He said, ^' JSivear not at all.'' This 
expression is as simple, clear, and absolute as the 
expression, " Judge not, condemn not," and is as 
little subject to explanation ; moreover, he added to 
this, "ie^ your communication he, Yea, yea; Nay, 
nay : for whatsoever is more than these cometh of 
evil." 

If obedience to the doctrine of Jesus consists in 
perpetual observance of the will of God, how can a 
man swear to observe the will of another man or 
other men ? The will of God cannot coincide with 
the will of man. And this is precisely what Jesus 
said in Matt. v. 36 : — 

'' Neither shalt thou sicear by thy head, because 
thou canst not nuike one hair white or black." 

And the apostle James says in his epistle, v. 
12: — 

''But above all things, my brethren, sivear not, 
neither by heaven, neither by earth, neither by any 
other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, 
nay ; lest ye fall into condemnation." 



90 M7 RELIGION. 

The apostle tells us clearly why we must not 
swear : the oath in itself may be unimportant, but 
by it men are condemned, and so we ought not to 
swear at all. How could we express more clearly 
the saying of Jesus and his apostle ? 

My ideas had become so confused that for a long 
time I had kept before me the question, Do the 
words and the meaning of this passage agree? — it 
does not seem possible. But, after having read the 
commentaries attentively, I saw that the impossible 
had become a fact. The explanations of the com- 
mentators were in harmony with those they had 
offered concerning the other commandments of 
Jesus : judge not, be not angry, do not violate the 
marital bonds. 

We have organized a social order which we cher- 
ish and look upon as sacred. Jesus, whom we rec- 
ognize as God, comes and tells us that our social 
organization is wrong. We recognize him as God, 
but we are not willing to renounce our social institu- 
tions. What, then, are we to do? Add, if we can, 
the words "without a cause" to render void the 
command against anger ; mutilate the sense of 
another law, as audacious prevaricators have done 
by substituting for the command absolutely forbid- 
ding divorce, phraseology which permits divorce ; 
and if there is no possible way of deriving an equiv- 
ocal meaning, as in the case of the commands, 
" Judge not, condemn not," and " Sioear not at all," 
then with the utmost effrontery openly violate the 
rule while affirming that we obey it. 



MY RELIGION. 91 

In fact, the principal obstacle to a comprehension 
of the truth that the Gospel forbids all manner of 
oaths exists in the fact that our pseudo-Christian 
commentators themselves, with unexampled audac- 
ity, take oath upon the Gospel itself. They make 
men swear by the Gospel, that is to say, they do 
just the contrary of what the Gospel commands. 
Why does it never occur to the man who is made to 
take an oath upon the cross and the Gospel that the 
cross was made sacred only by the death of one who 
forbade all oaths, and that in kissing the sacred 
book he perhaps is pressing his lips upon the very 
page where is recorded the clear and direct com- 
mandment, '•''Swear not at all"? 

But I was troubled no more with regard to the 
meaning of the passage comprised in Matt. v. 
33-37 when I found the plain declaration of the 
third commandment, that we should take no oath, 
since all oaths are imposed for an evil purpose. 

After the third commandment comes the fourth 
reference to the ancient law and the enunciation of 
the fourth commandment : — 

" Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for 
an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But 1 say unto you, 
TJiat ye resist not evil: but tvhosoever shall smite 
thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. 
And if any man will sue thee at the laio, and take 
aivay thy coat, let liim have thy cloak also. And 
whosoever shall conijyel thee to go a mile, go ivith him 
twai7i. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him 



92 MT RELIGION 

that would borroio of thee turn not thou aicay" 
(Matt. V. 38-42.) 

I have already spoken of the dh'ect and precise 
meaning of these words ; I have already said that 
we have no reason whatever for basing upon them 
an allegorical explanation. The comments that 
have been made upon them, from the time of Chrys- 
ostom to our day, are really surprising. The words 
are pleasing to every one, and they inspire all man- 
ner of profound reflections save one, — that these 
words express exactly what Jesus meant to say. 
The Church commentators, not at all awed by the 
authority of one whom they recognize as God, 
boldly distort the meaning of his words. They tell 
us, of course, that these commandments to bear 
offences and to refrain from reprisals are directed 
against the vindictive character of the Jews ; they 
not only do not exclude all general measures for the 
repression of evil and the punishment of evil-doers, 
but they exhort every one to individual and per- 
sonal effort to sustain justice, to apprehend aggres- 
sors, and to prevent the wicked from inflicting evil 
upon others, — for, otherwise (they tell us) these 
spiritual commandments of the Saviour would be- 
come, as they became among the Jews, a dead letter, 
and would serve only to propagate evil and to sup- 
press virtue. The love of the Christian should be 
patterned after the love of God ; but divine love 
circumscribes and reproves evil only as may be 
required for the glory of God and the safety of his 
servants, If evil is propagated, we must set bounds 



MY RELIGION. 93 

to evil and punish it, — now this is the duty of 
authorities.^ 

Christian scholars and free - thinkers are not 
embarrassed l)y the meaning of these words of 
Jesus, and do not hesitate to correct them. The 
sentiments here expressed, they tell us, are very 
noble, but are completely inapplicable to life ; for if 
we practised to the letter the commandment, '■'■ Re- 
sist not evil,^^ our entire social fabric would be 
destroyed. This is what Renan, Strauss, and all 
the liberal commentators tell us. If, however, we 
take the words of Jesus as we would take the words 
of any one who speaks to us, and admit that he says 
exactly what he does say, all these profound circum- 
locutions vanish away. Jesus says, "Your social 
system is absurd and wrong. I propose to you 
another." And then he utters the teachings reported 
by Matthew (v. 38-42) . It would seem that before 
correcting them one ought to understand them ; now 
this is exactly what no one wishes to do. We 
decide in advance that the social order which con- 
trols our existence, and which is abolished b}^ these 
words, is the superior law of humanity. 

For my part, I consider our social order to be 
neither wise nor sacred ; and that is why I have 
understood this commandment when others have 
not. And when I had understood these words just 
as they are written, I was struck with their truth, 

1 This citation is taken from the Commentaries on the Gospel, 
by the Archbishop Michael, a work based upon the writings of 
the Fathers of the Church. 



94 J/r RELIGION. 

their liiciditv, udcI their precision. Jesus said, 
"'You wish to suppress evil by evil; this is not 
reasonable. To abolish evil, avoid the commission 
of evil." And then he enumerates instances Tvhere 
we are in the habit of returning evil for evil, and 
says that in these cases we ought not so to do. 

This fourth commandment was the one that I first 
understood ; and it revealed to me the meaning of 
all the others. This simple, clear, and practical 
fourth commandment says : ' ' Never resist evil by 
force, never return violence for violence ; if an}' one 
beat you, bear it ; if one would deprive you of any- 
thing, yield to his wishes ; if any one would force 
you to labor, labor ; if any one would take away 
your property, abandon it at his demand." 

After the fourth commandment we find a fifth 
reference to the ancient law, followed by the fifth 
commandment : — 

" Ye have heard that it hath been said,^ Tliou shalt 
love thy neighbor and hate thine enemy. But I say 
unto you., Love your enemies., bless them that curse 
you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for 
them ichich de spitefully use you, and persecute you; 
That ye may be the children of your Father ichich is 
in heaven : for he maJceth his sun to rise on the evil 
and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on 
the unjust. For if ye love them ichich love you, ichat 
revjard have ye? do not even the publicans the same? 
And if ye scdute your brethren only, ichat do ye more 

1 See Levit. xix. 17, 18. 



31 Y RELIGION. 95 

than olhers? do not even the puhlknns so? Be ye 
therefore inrfect^ even as your Father ichich is in 
heaven is jyerfect." (Matt. v. 43-48.) 

These verses I had formerly regarded as a contin- 
uation, an exposition, an enforcement, I might 
almost sa}' an exaggeration, of the words, '•'• Resist 
not evil."' But as I had found a simple, precise, 
and practical meaning in each of the passages 
beginning with a reference to the ancient law, I 
anticipated a similar experience here. After each 
reference of this sort had thus far come a command- 
ment, and each commandment had been important 
and distinct in meaning ; it ought to be so now. 
The closing words of the passage, repeated by Luke, 
which are to the effect that God makes no distinction 
of persons, but lavishes his gifts upon all, and that 
we, following his precepts, ought to regard all men 
as equally worthy, and to do good to all, — these 
words were clear ; they seemed to me to be a con- 
firmation and exposition of some definite law — but 
what was this law ? For a long time I could not 
understand it. 

To love one's enemies? — this was impossible. It 
was one of those sublime thoughts that we must 
look upon only as an indication of a moral ideal 
impossible of attainment. It demanded all or noth- 
ing. AVe might, perhaps, refrain from doing injury 
to our enemies — but to love them ! — no ; Jesus 
did not command the impossible. And besides, in 
the words referring to the ancient law, " Ye have 
heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt . . . hate 



96 MY RELIGION. 

thine enemy, " there was cause for doubt. In other 
references Jesus cited textually the terms of the 
Mosaic law ; but here he apparently cites words 
that have no such authority ; he seems to calumniate 
the law of Moses. 

As with regard to my former doubts, so now the 
commentators gave me no explanation of the diffi- 
culty. They all agreed that the words ''hate thine 
enemy " were not in the Mosaic law, but the}" offered 
no suggestion as to the meaning of the unauthorized 
phrase. They spoke of the difficulty of loving one's 
enemies, that is, wicked men (thus they emended 
Jesus' words) ; and they said that while it is impos- 
sible to love our enemies, we may refrain from wish- 
ing them harm and from inflicting injury upon them. 
Moreover, they insinuated that we might and should 
" convince" our enemies, that is, resist them ; they 
spoke of the different degrees of love for our ene- 
mies which we might attain — from all of which the 
final conclusion was that Jesus, for some inexplica- 
ble reason, quoted as from the law of Moses words 
not to be found therein, and then uttered a number 
of sublime phi-ases which at bottom are impractica- 
ble and empty of meaning. 

I could not agree with this conclusion. In this 
passage, as in the passages containing the first four 
commandments, there must be some clear and pre- 
cise meaning. To find this meaning, I set myself 
first of all to discover the purport of the words con- 
taining the inexact reference to the ancient law, 
" Ye have heard that it hath been said. Thou shalt 



3fY RELIGION. 97 

. . . hate thine enemy.'' Jesus had some reason 
for placing at the head of each of his command- 
ments certain portions of the ancient law to serve 
as the antitheses of his own doctrine. If we do not 
understand what is meant by the citations from the 
ancient law, we cannot understand what Jesus pro- 
scribed. The commentators say frankly (it is 
impossible not to say so) that Jesus in this instance 
made use of words not to be found in the Mosaic 
law, but they do not tell us why he did so or what 
meaning we are to attach to the words thus used. 

It seemed to me above all necessary to know 
what Jesus had in view when he cited these words 
which are not to be found in the law. I asked myself 
what these words could mean. In all other refer- 
ences of the sort, Jesus quotes a single rule from 
the ancient law : " Thou shalt not kill " — " Thou 
shalt not commit adulter}^ " — " Thou shalt not for- 
swear thyself" — "An eye for an eye, a tooth for 
a tooth" — and with regard to each rule he pro- 
pounds his own doctrine. In the instance under 
consideration, he cites two contrasting rules: "Ye 
have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy 
neighbor and hate thine enemy," — from which it 
would appear that the contrast between these two 
rules of the ancient law, relative to one's neighbor 
and one's enemy, should be the basis of the new 
law. To understand clearly what this contrast was, 
I sought for the meanings of the words " neighbor" 
and " enemy," as used in the Gospel text. After 
consulting dictionaries and Biblical texts, I was con- 



98 MY RELIGION. 

Annced that "neighbor" in the Hebrew language 
meant, invariably and exclusively, a Hebrew. We 
find the same meaning expressed in the Gospel par- 
able of the Samaritan. From the inquiry of the 
Jewish scribe (Luke x. 29), " And ivJio is my neigh- 
bor ? " it is plain that he did not regard the Samari- 
tan as such. The word "neighbor" is used with 
the same meaning in Acts vii. 27. " Neighbor," in 
Gospel language, means a compati'iot, a person 
belonging to the same nationality. And so the 
antithesis used by Jesus in the citation, '•'•love thy 
neighbor.) hate thine enemy^" must be in the dis- 
tinction between the words "compatriot" and 
"foreigner." I then sought for the Jewish under- 
standing of " enemy," and I found my supposition 
confirmed. The word "enemy" is nearlj^ always 
employed in the Gospels in the sense, not of a per- 
sonal enemy, but, in general, of a " hostile people" 
(Luke i. 71, 74; Matt. xxii. 44 ; Mark xii. 36 ; 
Luke XX. 43, etc.). The use of the word "enemy" 
in the singular form, in the phrase " hate thine 
enemy.,''' convinced me that the meaning is a " hos- 
tile people." In the Old Testament, the conception 
' ' hostile people " is nearly always expressed in the 
singular form. 

When I understood this, I understood why Jesus, 
who had before quoted the authentic words of the 
law, had here cited the words '•'•hate thine enemy.'' 
When we understand the word "enemy" in the 
sense of "hostile people," and "neighbor" in the 
sense of " compatriot," the difficulty is completely 



31 Y RELIGION. 99 

solved. Jesns spoke of the manner in which Moses 
directed the Hebrews to act toward "hostile peo- 
ples." The various passages scattered through the 
different books of the Old Testament, prescribing 
the oppression, slaughter, and extermination of 
other peoples, Jesus summed up in one word, 
" hate," — make war upon the enemy. He said, in 
substance : ' ' You have heard that you must love 
those of your own race, and hate foreigners ; but I 
say unto you, love every one without distinction of 
nationality." When I had understood these words 
in this way, I saw immediately the force of the 
phrase, ''^ Love your enemies'' It is impossible to 
love one's personal enemies ; but it is perfectly pos- 
sible to love the citizens of a foreign nation equally 
with one's compatriots. And I saw clearly that in 
saying, " Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou 
shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy. But I 
say unto you, Love your enemies,'' Jesus meant to 
sa}^ that men are in the habit of looking upon com- 
patriots as neighbors, and foreigners as enemies ; 
and this he reproved. His meaning was that the 
law of Moses established a difference between the 
Hebrew and the foreigner — the hostile peoples ; but 
he forbade any such difference. And then, accord- 
ing to Matthew and Luke, after giving this com- 
mandment, he said that with God all men are equal, 
all are warmed by the same sun, all profit by the 
same rain. God makes no distinction among peo- 
]3les, and lavishes his gifts upon all men ; men ought 
to act exactly in the same way toward one another, 



100 MY BELIGIOX. 

without distinction of nationality, and not like the 
heathen, who divide themselves into distinct nation- 
alities. 

Thus once more I found confirmed on all sides 
the simple, clear, important, and practical meaning 
of the words of Jesus. Once more, in place of an 
obscm-e sentence, I had found a clear, precise, 
important, and practical rule : To make no dis- 
tinction between compatriots and foreigners, and to 
abstain from all the results of such distinction, — 
from hostility towards foreigners, from wars, from 
all participation in war, from all preparations for 
war ; to establish with all men, of whatever nation- 
ality, the same relations granted to compatriots. 
All this was so simple and so clear, that I was 
astonished that I had not perceived it from the first. 

The cause of my error was the same as that which 
had perplexed me with regard to the passages relat- 
ing to judgments and the taking of oaths. It is 
very diflQcult to believe that tribunals upheld by 
professed Christians, blest by those who consider 
themselves the guardians of the law of Jesus, could 
be incompatible with the Christian religion ; could 
be, in fact, diametrically opposed to it. It is still 
more difficult to believe that the oath which we are 
obliged to take by the guardians of the law of Jesus, 
is directly reproved by this law. To admit that 
everything in life that is considered essential and 
natural, as well as what is considered the most noble 
and grand, — love of country, its defence, its glory, 
battle with its enemies, — to admit that all this is 



M7 RELIGION. 101 

not onl}^ an infraction of the law of Jesus, but is 
directly denounced by Jesus, — this, I say, is 
difficult. 

Our existence is now so entirely in contradiction 
with the doctrine of Jesus, that only with the great- 
est difficulty can we understand its meaning. "We 
have been so deaf to the rules of life that he has 
given us, to his explanations, — not only when he 
commands us not to kill, but when he warns us against 
auger, when he commands us not to resist evil, to 
turn the other cheek, to love our enemies ; we are 
so accustomed to speak of a body of men especially 
organized for murder, as a Christian army, we are 
so accustomed to prayers addressed to the Christ for 
the assurance of victory, we who have made the 
sword, that symbol of murder, an almost sacred ob- 
ject (so that a man deprived of this symbol, of his 
sword, is a dishonored man) ; we are so accustomed, 
I say, to this, that the words of Jesus seem to us 
compatible with war. We sa}', "If he had forbid- 
den it, he would have said so plainly." We forget 
that Jesus did not foresee that men having faith in 
his doctrine of humility, love, and fraternity, could 
ever, with calmness and premeditation, organize 
themselves for the murder of their brethren. 

Jesus did not foresee this, and so he did not forbid 
a Christian to participate in war* A father who ex- 
horts his son to live honesth^, never to wrong any 
person, and to give all that he has to othere, would 
not forbid his son to kill people upon the highway. 
None of the apostles, no disciple of Jesus during the 



102 3fY RELIGION. 

first centuries of Christianity, realized the necessity 
of forbidding a Chi'istian that form of mui'der Tvbich 
we call war. 

Here, for example, is what Origen says in his 
reply to Celsus : ^ — 

" In the next place, Celsus urges us ' to help the 
king with all our might, and to labor with him in the 
maintenance of justice, to fight for him ; and, if he 
requires it, to fight under him, or lead an arm}' along 
with him.' To this, our answer is that we do, when 
occasion requires, give help to kings, and that, 
so to say, a divine help, ' putting on the whole 
armour of God.' And this we do in obedience to 
the injunction of the apostle, ' I exhort, therefore, 
that first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, 
and giving of thanks, be made for all men, for kings, 
and for all that are in authority ' ; and the more any 
one excels in piety, the more effective help does he 
render to kings, even more than is given by soldiers, 
who go forth to fight and slay as many of the 
enemy as they can. And to those enemies of our 
faith who require us to bear arms for the common- 
wealth, and to slay men, we can reph' : 'Do not 
those who are priests at certain shrines, and those 
who attend on certain gods, as 3'ou account them, 
keep their hands free from blood, that they may 
with hands unstained and free from human blood, 
offer the appointed sacrifices to your gods? and 
even when war is upon you, you never enlist the 
priests in the army. If that, then, is a laudable 
1 Contra Celsum, book Vin. cliap. LXXIH. 



MY RELIGION. 103 

custom, how much more so, that while others are 
engaged in battle, these too should engage as the 
priests and ministers of God, keeping their hands 
pure, and wrestling in prayers to God on behalf of 
those who are fighting in a righteous cause, and for 
the king who reigns righteously, that whatever is 
opposed to those who act righteously may be 
destroyed ! ' " 

And at the close of the chapter, in explaining 
that Christians, through their peaceful lives, are 
much more helpful to kings than soldiers are, Origen 
says : — 

' ' And none fight better for the king than we do. 
"We do not, indeed, fight under him, although he 
require it ; but we fight on his behalf, forming a 
special army, — an army of piet}^, — by offering our 
prayers to God." 

This is the way in which the Christians of the first 
centuries regarded war, and such was the language 
that their leaders addi*essecl,to the rulers of the earth 
at a period when martyrs perished by hundreds and 
by thousands for having confessed the religion of 
Jesus, the Christ. 

And now is not the question settled as to whether a 
Christian may or may not go to war ? All young men 
brought up according to the doctrine of the Church 
called Christian, are obliged at a specified date dur- 
ing ever}^ autumn, to report at the bureaus of con- 
scription and, under the guidance of their spiritual 
directors, deliberately to renounce the religion of 
Jesus. Not long ago, there was a peasant who 



104 MT RELIGION. 

refused military ser^nce on the plea that it was con- 
trary to the Gospel. The doctors of the Church 
explained to the peasant his error ; but, as the 
peasant had faith, not in their words, but in those 
of Jesus, he was thrown into prison, where he re- 
mained until he was ready to renounce the law of 
Chi'ist. And aU this happened after Christians had 
heard for eighteen hundred years the clear, precise, 
and practical commandment of their Master, which 
teaches not to consider men of different nationality 
as enemies, but to consider aU men as brethren, 
and to maintain with them the same relations exist- 
ing among compati'iots ; to refrain not only from 
killing those who are called enemies, but to love 
them and to minister to their needs. 

TThen I had understood these simple and precise 
commandments of Jesus, these commandments so 
ill adapted to the ingenious distortions of commen- 
tators, — :I asked myself what would be the result if 
the whole Christian world believed in them, believed 
not only in reading and chanting them for the glory 
of God, but also in obeying them for the good of 
humanity? What would be the result if men be- 
lieved in the observance of these commandments 
at least as seriously as they believe in daily devo- 
tions, in attendance on Sunday worship, in weekly 
fasts, in the holy sacrament? TThat would be the 
result if the faith of men in these commandments 
were as strong as their faith in the requkements of 
the Church? And then I saw in imagination a 
Christian society living according to these com- 






MY RELIGION. 105 

rnandmcnts and educating the younger generation 
to follow their precepts. I tried to picture the 
results if we taught our children from infanc}', not 
what we teach them now — to maintain personal 
dignity, to uphold personal privileges against the 
encroachments of others (which we can never do 
without humiliating or offending others) — but to 
teach them that no man has a right to privileges, 
and can neither be above or below any one else ; 
that he alone debases and demeans himself who 
tries to domineer over others ; that a man can be in 
a no more contemptible condition than when he is 
angry with another ; that what may seem to be 
foolish and despicable in another is no excuse for 
wrath or enmity. I sought to imagine the results 
if, instead of extolling our social organization as it 
now is, with its theatres, its romances, its sumptu- 
ous methods for stimulating sensuous desires — if, 
instead of this, we taught our children by precept 
and by example, that the reading of lascivious 
romances and attendance at theatres and balls are 
the most vulgar of all distractions, and that there 
is nothing more grotesque and humiliating than to 
pass one's time in the collection and arrangement 
of personal finery to make of one's body an object 
of show. I endeavored to imagine a state of society 
where, instead of permitting and approving liber- 
tinism in young men before marriage, instead of 
regarding the separation of husband and wife as 
natural and desirable, instead of giving to women 
the legal right to practise the trade of prostitution, 



106 MT RELIGIOX. 

instead of countenancing and sanctioning divorce — 
if, instead of this, we taught by words and actions 
that the state of celibacy, the solitary existence of 
a man properly endowed for, and who has not 
renounced the sexual relation, is a monstrous and 
opprobrious wrong ; and that the abandonment of 
wife by husband or of husband by wife for the 
sake of another, is an act against nature, an act 
bestial and inhuman. 

Instead of regarding it as natural that our entire 
existence should be controlled by coercion ; that 
every one of our amusements should be provided 
and maintained by force ; that each of us from 
childhood to old age should be by turns victim 
and executioner — instead of this I tried to picture 
the results if, by precept and example, we endeav- 
ored to inspire the world with the conviction that 
vengeance is a sentiment unworthy of humanit}' ; 
that violence is not only debasing, but that it de- 
prives us of all capacity for happiness ; that the 
true pleasures of life are not those maintained by 
force ; and that our greatest consideration ought to 
be bestowed, not upon those who accumulate riches 
to the injury of others, but upon those who best 
sei've others and give what they have to lessen the 
woes of their kind. If instead of regarding the 
taking of an oath and the placing of ourselves and 
our lives at the disposition of another as a rightful 
and praiseworthy act, — I tried to imagine what 
would be the result if we taught that the enlightened 
will of man is alone sacred ; and that if a man place 



3IT religion: 107 

himself at the disposition of any one, and promise 
by oath anything whatever, he renounces his rational 
manhood and outrages his most sacred right. I 
tried to imagine the results, if, instead of the 
national hatred with which we are inspired under 
the name of ''patriotism"; if, in place of the 
glor}" associated with that form of murder which we 
call war, — if, in place of this, we were taught, on 
the contrary, horror and contempt for all the means 
— military, diplomatic, and political — which serve 
to divide men ; if we were educated to look upon 
the division of men into political States, and a 
diversity of codes and frontiers, as an indication of 
barbarism ; and that to massacre others is a most 
horrible forfeit, which can only be exacted of a 
depraved and misguided man, who has fallen to the 
lowest level of the brute. I imagined that all men 
had arrived at these convictions, and I considered 
what I thought would be the result. 

Up to this time (1 said), what have been the 
practical results of the doctrine of Jesus as I 
understand it? and the involuntary reply was, 
Nothing. "We continue to pray, to partake of the 
sacraments, to believe in the redemption, and in 
our personal salvation as well as that of the world 
by Jesus the Christ, — and yet that this salvation 
will never come by our efforts, but will come be- 
cause the period set for the end of the world will 
have arrived when the Christ will appear in his 
glory to judge the quick and the dead, and the 
kingdom of heaven will be established. 



108 MY RELIGION. 

Now the doctrine of Jesus, as I understood it, 
had an entkely different meaning. The establish- 
ment of the kingdom of God depended upon our 
personal efforts in the practice of Jesus' doctrine as 
propounded in the five commandments, which insti- 
tuted the kingdom of G-od upon earth. The king- 
dom of God upon earth consists in this, that all 
men should be at peace with one another. It was 
thus that the Hebrew prophets conceived of the 
rule of God. Peace among men is the greatest 
blessing that can exist upon this earth, and it is 
within reach of all men. This ideal is in every 
human heart. The prophets all brought to men the 
promise of peace. The whole doctrine of Jesus 
has but one object, to establish peace — the king- 
dom of God — among men. 

In the Sermon on the Mount, in the interview 
with Nicodemus, in the instructions given to his 
disciples, in all his teachings, Jesus spoke only of this, 
of the things that divided men, that kept them 
from peace, that prevented them from entering into 
the kingdom of heaven. The parables make clear 
to us what the kingdom of heaven is, and show us 
the only way of entering therein, which is to love 
our brethren, and to be at peace with all. John 
the Baptist, the forerunner of Jesus, proclaimed the 
approach of the kingdom of God, and declared that 
Jesus was to bring it upon earth. Jesus himself 
said that his mission was to bring peace : — 

" Peace I leave icitli you^ ray peace I give unto 
you: not as the icorld giveth, give I unto you. Let 



MT RELIGION. 109 

not your heart he troiibled, neither let it he afraid'' 
(John xiv. 27). 

And the observance of his five commandments 
will bring peace upon the earth. They all have but 
one object, — the establishment of peace among 
men. If men will onl}" believe in the doctrine of 
Jesus and practise it, the reign of peace will come 
upon earth, — not that peace which is the work of 
man, partial, precarious, and at the mercy of 
chance ; but the peace that is all-pervading, inviola- 
ble, and eternal. 

The first commandment tells us to be at peace 
with every one and to consider none as foolish or 
unworthy. If peace is violated, we are to seek to 
re-establish it. The true religion is in the extinc- 
tion of enmity among men. We are to be reconciled 
without delay, that we may not lose that inner peace 
which is the true life (Matt. v. 22-24) . Everything 
is comprised in this commandment ; but Jesus knew 
the worldly temptations that prevent peace among 
men. The first temptation perilous to peace is that 
of the sexual relation. We are not to consider the 
body as an instrument of lust ; each man is to have 
one wife, and each woman one husband, and one is 
never to forsake the other under au}' pretext (Matt. 
V. 28-32) . The second temptation is that of the 
oath, which draws men into sin ; this is wrong, and 
we are not to be bound by any such promise (Matt. 
V. 34-37). The third temptation is that of ven- 
geance, which we call human justice ; this we are 
not to resort to under any pretext ; we are to endure 



110 MY RELIGION. 

OiTeuces and never to return evil for evil (Matt. v. 
38-42) . The fourth temptation is that arising from 
difference in nationalities, from hostility between 
peoples and States ; but we are to remember that 
all men are brothers, and children of the same 
Father, and thus take care that difference in nation- 
ality leads not to the destruction of peace (Matt. v. 
43-48). 

If men abstain from practising any one of these 
commandments, peace will be violated. Let men 
practise all these commandments, which exclude 
evil from the lives of men, and peace will be estab- 
lished upon earth. The practice of these five com- 
mandments would realize the ideal of human life 
existing in every human heart. All men would be 
brothers, each would be at peace with others, enjoy- 
ing all the blessings of earth to the limit of years 
accorded by the Creator. Men would beat their 
swords into ploughshares, and their spears into 
pruning -hooks, and then would come the kingdom 
of God, — that reign of peace foretold by all the 
prophets, which was foretold by John the Baptist as 
near at hand, and which Jesus proclaimed in the 
words of Isaiah : — 

" ' The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he 
hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor ; he 
hath sent me to heal the hrolcen hearted^ to preach 
deliverance to the captives^ and recovering of sight to the 
blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, to preach 
the accep)table year of the Lord.' i . . . And he began 
1 Isaiah Ixi. 1, 2. 



MY RELIGION. Ill 

to say unto them, To-day hath this Scripture been 
fulfilled in your ears " (Luke iv. 18, 19, 21). 

The commanclinents for peace given by Jesus, — 
those simple and clear commandments, foreseeing 
all possibilities of discussion, and anticipating all 
objections, — these commandments proclaimed the 
kingdom of God upon earth. Jesus, then, was, in 
truth, the Messiah. He fulfilled what had been 
promised. But we have not fulfilled the commands 
we must fulfil if the kingdom of God is to be estab- 
lished upon earth, — that kingdom which men in all 
ages have earnestly desired, and have sought for 
continually, all their days. 



CHAPTER VII. 



WHY is it that men have not done as Jesus 
commanded them, and thus secured the 
greatest happiness within their reach, the happiness 
they have always longed for and still desire ? The 
reply to this inquiry is always the same, although 
expressed in different ways. The doctrine of Jesus 
(we are told) is admirable, and it is true that if we 
practised it, we should see the kingdom of God 
established upon earth ; but to practise it is difficult, 
and consequently this doctrine is impracticable. 
The doctrine of Jesus, which teaches men how they 
should live, is admirable, is divine ; it brings true 
happiness, but it is difficult to practise. We repeat 
this, and hear it repeated so many, many times, 
that we do not observe the contradiction contained 
in these words. 

It is natural to each human being to do what 
seems to him best. Any doctrine teaching men how 
they should live instructs them only as to what is 
best for each. If we show men what they have to 
do to attain what is best for each, how can they say 
that they would like to do it, but that it is impossi- 
ble of attainment? According to the law of their 
nature they cannot do what is worse for each, and 
yet they declare that they cannot do what is best. 



MY RELIGION. 113 

The reasonable activity of man, from his earliest 
existence, has been applied to the search for what 
is best among the contradictions that envelop human 
life. Men struggled for the soil, for objects which 
are necessary to them ; then they arrived at the 
division of goods, and called this property ; finding 
that this arrangement, although diflScult to estab- 
lish, was best, they maintained ownership. Men 
fought with one another for the possession of 
women, they abandoned their children ; then the}^ 
found it was best that each should have his own 
family ; and although it was difficult to sustain a 
family, they maintained the family, as they did 
ownership and many other things. As soon as they 
discover that a thing is best, however difficult of 
attainment, men do it. What, then, is the meaning 
of the saying that the doctrine of Jesus is admira- 
ble, that a life according to the doctrine of Jesus 
would be better than the life which men now lead, 
but that men cannot lead this better life because it 
is difficult? 

If the word " difficult," used in this way, is to be 
understood in the sense that it is difficult to renounce 
the fleeting satisfaction of sensual desires that we 
may obtain a greater good, why do we not say that 
it is difficult to labor for bread, difficult to plant a 
tree that we ma}'' enjoy the fruit? Every being 
endowed with even the most rudimentary reason 
knows that he must endure difficulties to procure 
any good, superior to that which he has enjoyed 
before. And yet we say that the doctrine of Jesus 



114 MT RELIGION. 

is admirable, but impossible of practice, because it 
is difficult ! Now it is difficult, because in following 
it we are obliged to deprive ourselves of many things 
tbat we have hitherto enjoyed. Have we never 
heard that it is far more to our advantage to endure 
difficulties and privations than to satisfy all our 
desires? Man ma}' fall to the level of the beasts, 
but he ought not to make use of his reason to devise 
an apology for his bestiality. From the moment 
that he begins to reason, he is conscious of being 
endowed with reason, and this consciousness stimu- 
lates him to distinguish between the reasonable and 
the unreasonable. Reason does not proscribe ; it 
enlightens. 

Suppose that I am shut into a dark room, and in 
searching for the door I continually bruise myself 
against the walls. Some one brings me a light, and 
I see the door. I ought no longer to bruise myself 
when I see the door ; much less ought I to affirm 
that, although it is best to go out through the door, 
it is difficult to do so, and that, consequently, I 
prefer to bruise myself against the walls. 

In this marvellous argument that the doctrine of 
Jesus is admirable, and that its practice would give 
the world true happiness, but that men are weak 
and sinful, that they would do the best and do the 
worst, and so cannot do the best, — in this strange 
plea there is an evident misapprehension ; there is 
something else besides defective reasoning ; there 
is also a chimerical idea. Only a chimerical idea, 
mistaking reality for what does not exist, and taking 



3fT RELIGION. 115 

the non-existent for reality, could lead men to deny 
the possibility of practising that which by their own 
avowal would be for their true welfare. 

The chimerical idea which has reduced men to 
this condition is that of the dogmatic Christian relig- 
ion, as it is taught through the various catechisms, 
to all who profess the Christianity of the Church. 
This religion, according to the definition of it given 
b}' its followers, consists in accepting as real that 
which does not exist — these are Paul's words, i and 
they are repeated in all the theologies and cate- 
chisms as the best definition of faith. It is this 
faith in the reality of what does not exist that leads 
men to make the strange affirmation that the doc- 
trine of Jesus is excellent for all men, but is worth 
nothing as a guide to their way of living. Here is 
an exact summary of what this religion teaches : — 

A personal God, who is from all eternity — one 
of three persons — decided to create a world of 
spirits. This God of goodness created the world of 
spirits for their own happiness, but it so happened 
that one of the spirits became spontaneously wicked. 
Time passed, and God created a material world, 
created man for man's own happiness, created man 
happy, immortal, and without sin. The felicity of 
man consisted in the enjoyment of life without toil ; 
his immortality was due to the promise that this life 
should last forever ; his innocence was due to the 
fact that he had no conception of evil. 

1 Heb. ii. 2. Literally, " Faith is the support of the hoped 
for, the conviction of the unseen." 



116 M7 RELIGION. 

Man was beguiled in paradise by one of the 
spirits of the first creation, who bad become sponta- 
neously wicked. From this dates the fall of man, 
who engendered other men fallen like himself, and 
from this time men have endured toil, sickness, 
suffering, death, the physical and moral struggle for 
existence ; that is to say, the fantastic being pre- 
ceding the fall became real, as we know him to be, 
as we have no right or reason to imagine him not to 
be. The state of man who toils, who suffers, who 
chooses what is for his own welfare and rejects what 
would be injurious to him, who dies, — this state, 
which is the real and only conceivable state, is not, 
according to the doctrine of this rehgion, the nor- 
mal state of man, but a state which is unnatural and 
temporary. 

Although this state, according to the doctrine, has 
lasted for all humanity since the expulsion of Adam 
from paradise, that is, from the commencement of 
the world until the birth of Jesus, and has con- 
tinued since the birth of Jesus under exactly the 
same conditions, the faithful are asked to believe 
that this is an abnormal and temporary state. 
According to this doctrine, the Son of God, the 
second person of the Trinity, who was himself G-od, 
was sent by God into the world in the garb of 
humanity to rescue men from this temporary and 
abnormal state ; to deliver them from the pains with 
which they had been stricken by this same God be- 
cause of Adam's sin ; and to restore them to their 
former normal state of felicity, — that is to immor- 



MY RELIGION. 117 

tality, innocence, and idleness. The second person 
of the Trinity (iiccording to this doctrine), by suffer- 
ing death at the hands of man, atoned for Adam's 
sin, and put an end to that abnormal state which 
had lasted from the commencement of the world. 
And from that time onward, the men who have had 
faith in Jesus have returned to the state of the first 
man in paradise ; that is, have become immortal, 
innocent, and idle. 

The doctrine does not concern itself too closely 
with the practical result of the redemption, in virtue 
of which the earth after Jesus' coming ought to have 
become once more, at least for believers, everywhere 
fertile, without need of human toil ; sickness ought 
to have ceased, and mothers have borne children 
without pain ; — since it is difficult to assure even 
believers who are worn by excessive labor and 
broken down by suffering, that toil is light, and 
suffering easy to endure. 

But that portion of the doctrine which proclaims 
the abrogation of death and of sin, is affirmed with 
redoubled emphasis. It is asserted that the dead 
continue to live. And as the dead cannot bear wit- 
ness that the}' are dead or prove that they are living 
(just as a stone is unable to affirm either that it can 
or cannot speak) , this absence of denial is admitted 
as proof, and it is affirmed that dead men are not 
dead. It is affirmed with still more solemnity and 
assurance that, since the coming of Jesus, the man 
who has faith in him is free from sin ; that is, that 
since the coming of Jesus, it is no longer necessary 



118 3IT RELIGION. 

that man should guide his Ufe by reason, and choose 
Tvhat is best for himself. He has only to believe 
tliat Jesus has redeemed his sins and he then becomes 
infallible, that is, perfect. According to this doc- 
trine, men ought to believe that reason is powerless, 
and that for this cause they are without sin, that is, 
cannot err. A faithful believer ought to be con- 
vinced that since the coming of Jesus, the earth 
brings forth without labor, that childbirth no longer 
entails suffering, that diseases no longer exist, and 
that death and sin, that is, error, are destroyed ; in 
a word, tbat what is, is not, and what is not, is. 

Such is the rigorously logical theory of Christian 
theology. This doctrine, by itself, seems to be 
innocent. But deviations from truth are never inof- 
fensive, and the significance of their consequences 
is in proportion to the importance of the subject to 
which these eiTors are applied. And here the sub- 
ject at issue is the whole life of man. What this 
doctrine calls the true life, is a life of personal hap- 
piness, without sin, and eternal ; that is, a life that 
no one has ever known, and which does not exist. 
But the Hfe that is, the only life that we know, the 
life that we live and that all humanity lives and has 
lived, is, according to this doctrine, a degraded and 
evil existence, a mere phantasmagoria of the happy 
life which is our due. 

Of the struggle between animal instincts and 
reason, which is the essence of human life, this doc- 
trine takes no account. The struggle that Adam 
underwent in paradise, in deciding whether to eat 



MY religion: 119 

or not to eat tlie fruit of the tree of knowledge, is^ 
according to this doctrine, no longer within the 
range of human experience. The question was 
decided, once for all, by Adam in paradise. Adam 
sinned for all ; in other words, he did wrong, and all 
men are irretrievabl}^ degraded ; and all our efforts 
to live by reason are vain and even impious. This 
I ought to know, for I am irreparably bad. My 
salvation does not depend upon living by the light 
of reason, and, after distinguishing between good 
and evil, choosing the good ; no, Adam, once for 
all, sinned for me, and Jesus, once for all, has 
atoned for the wrong committed by Adam ; and so 
I ought, as a looker-on, to mourn over the fall of 
Adam and rejoice at the redemption through Jesus. 

All the love for truth and goodness in the heart 
of man, all his efforts to illuminate his spiritual life 
by the light of reason, are not onl}' of slight 
importance, according to this doctrine ; they are a 
temptation, an incitement to pride. Life as it is 
upon this earth, with all its joys and its splendors, 
its struggles of reason with darkness, — the life of 
all men that have lived before me, my own life with 
its inner struggles and triumphs, — all this is not 
the true life ; it is the fallen life, a life irretrievably 
bad. The true life, the life without sin, is only in 
faith, that is, in imagination, that is, in lunacy. 

Let any one break the habit contracted from 
infancy of believing in all this ; let him look boldly 
at this doctrine as it is ; let him endeavor to put 
himself in the position of a man without prejudice, 



120 MY RELIGION. 

educated independently of this doctrine — and then 
let him ask himself if this doctrine would not 
appear to such a man as a product of absolute 
insanity. 

However strange and shocking all this might ap- 
pear to me, I was obliged to examine into it, for 
here alone I found the explanation of the objection, 
so devoid of logic and common-sense, that I heard 
everywhere with regard to the impossibility of prac- 
tising the doctrine of Jesus : It is admirable, and 
would give true happiness to men, but men are not 
able to obey it. 

Onl}^ a conviction that reality does not exist, and 
that the non-existent is real, could lead men to this 
surprising contradiction. And this false conviction 
I found in the pseudo-Chi'istian religion which men 
had been teaching for fifteen hundi'ed years. 

The objection that the doctrine of Jesus is excel- 
lent but impracticable, comes not only from believers, 
but from sceptics, from those who do not believe, or 
think that they do not believe, in the dogmas of the 
fall of man and the redemption ; from men of 
science and philosophers who consider themselves 
free from all prejudice. They believe, or imagine 
that thej^ believe, in nothing, and so consider them- 
selves as above such a superstition as the dogma of 
the fall and the redemption. At first it seemed to 
me that all such persons had serious motives for 
denying the possibility of x^ractising the doctrine of 
Jesus. But when I came to look into the source of 
their negation, I was convinced that the sceptics, in 



MY RELIGION. 121 

common with the believers, have a false conception 
of life ; to them life is not what it is, but what they 
imagine it ought to be, — and this conception rests 
upon the same foundation as does that of the be- 
lievers. It is true that the sceptics, who pretend 
to believe in nothing, believe not in God, or in 
Jesus, or in Adam ; but they believe in a funda- 
mental idea which is at the basis of their miscon- 
ception, — in the rights of man to a life of happi- 
ness, — much more firmly than do the theologians. 

In vain do science and philosophy pose as the 
arbiters of the human mind, of which they are in 
fact only the servants. Religion has provided a 
conception of life, and science travels in the beaten 
path. Religion reveals the meaning of life, and 
science only applies this meaning to the course of 
circumstances. And so, if religion falsifies the 
meaning of human life, science, which builds upon 
the same foundaHon, can only make manifest the 
same fantastic ideas. 

According to the doctrine of the Church, men 
have a right to happiness, and this happiness is not 
the result of their own efforts, but of external 
causes. This conception has become the base of 
science and philosophy. Religion, science, and 
public opinion all unite in telling us that the life we 
now live is bad, and at the same time they affirm 
that the doctrine which teaches us how we can suc- 
ceed in ameliorating life by becoming better, is an 
impracticable doctrine. Religion says that the doc- 
trine of Jesus, which provides a reasonable method 



122 MY RELIGION. 

for the improvement of life by our own efforts, is 
impracticable because Adam fell and the world was 
plunged into sin. Philosophy saj's that the doc- 
trine of Jesus is impracticable because human life 
is developed according to laws that are independent 
of the human will. In other words, the conclusions 
of science and philosophy are exactly the same as 
the conclusion reached by religion in the dogmas of 
original sin and the redemption. 

There are two leading theses at the basis of the 
doctrine of the redemption: (1) the normal life of 
man is a life of happiness, but our life on earth is 
one of misery, and it can never be bettered by our 
own efforts ; (2) our salvation is in faith, which 
enables us to escape from this life of misery. 
These two theses are the source of the religious 
conceptions of the believers and sceptics who make 
up our pseudo-Christian societies. The second 
thesis gave birth to the Church and its organiza- 
tion ; from the first is derived the received tenets of 
public opinion and our political and philosophical 
theories. The germ of all political and philosophi- 
cal theories that seek to justif}^ the existing order of 
things — such as Hegelianism and its offshoots — is 
in this second thesis. Pessimism, which demands 
of life what it cannot give and then denies its value, 
has also its origin in the same dogmatic proposition. 
Materialism, with its strange and enthusiastic affir- 
mation that man is the product of natural forces 
and nothing more, is the legitimate result of the 
doctrine that teaches that life on earth is a de- 



31 Y BELIGIOX. 123 

graded existence. Spiritism, with its learned ad- 
herents, is the best proof we have that the conchi- 
sions of philosophy and science are based upon the 
religious doctrine of that eternal happiness which 
should be the natural heritage of man. 

This false conception of life has had a deplorable 
influence upon all reasonable human activity. The 
dogma of the fall and the redemption has debarred 
man from the most important and legitimate field 
for the exercise of his powers, and has deprived him 
entirely of the idea that he can of himself do any- 
thing to make his life happier or better. Science 
and philosophy, proudly believing themselves hostile 
to pseudo-Christianity, only carry out its decrees. 
Science and philosophy concern themselves with 
everything except the theory that man can do any- 
thing to make himself better or happier. Ethical 
and moral instruction have disappeared from our 
pseudo-Christian society without leaving a trace. 

Believers and sceptics who concern themselves so 
little with the problem how to live, how to make use 
of the reason with which we are endowed, ask why 
our earthly life is not what they imagine it ought to 
be, and when it will become what they wish. This 
singular phenomenon is due to the false doctrine 
which has penetrated into the very marrow of 
humanity. The effects of the knowledge of good 
and evil, which man so unhappily acquired in para- 
dise, do not seem to have been very lasting ; for, 
neglecting the truth that life is only a solution of 
the contradictions between animal instincts and rea- 



124 MY RELIGION. 

son, he stolidly refrains from applying his reason to 
the discovery of the historical laws that govern his 
animal nature. 

Excepting the philosophical doctrines of the 
pseudo-Christian world, all the philosophical and 
religious doctrines of which we have knowledge — 
Judaism, the doctrine of Confucius, Buddhism, 
Brahmanism, the wisdom of the Greeks — all aim to 
regulate human life, and to enlighten men with 
regard to what they must do to improve their condi- 
tion. The doctrine of Confucius teaches the per- 
fecting of the individual ; Judaism, personal fidelity 
to an alliance with God ; Buddhism, how to escape 
from a life governed by animal instincts ; Socrates 
taught the perfecting of the individual through rea- 
son ; the Stoics recognized the independence of 
reason as the sole basis of the true life. 

The reasonable activity of man has always been 
— it could not be otherwise — to light by the torch 
of reason his progress toward beatitude. Philoso- 
phy tells us that free-will is an illusion, and then 
boasts of the boldness of such a declaration. Free- 
will is not only an illusion ; it is an empty word 
invented by theologians and experts in criminal law ; 
to refute it would be to undertake a battle with a 
wind-mill. But reason, which illuminates our life 
and impels us to modify our actions, is not an illu- 
sion, and its authority can never be denied. To 
obey reason in the pursuit of good is the substance 
of the teachings of all the masters of humanity, and 
it is the substance of the doctrine of Jesus ; it is 



M7 RELIGION. 125 

reason itself, and we cannot deny reason by the use 
of reason. 

Making use of the phrase "son of man," Jesus 
teaches that all men have a common impulse toward 
good and toward reason, which leads to good. It 
is superfluous to attempt to prove that ' ' son of 
man" means "Son of God." To understand by 
the words ' ' son of man " anything different from 
what they signify is to assume that Jesus, to say 
what he wished to say, intentionally made use of 
words which have an entnely different meaning. 
But even if, as the Church says, "son of man" 
means "Son of God," the phrase "son of man" 
applies none the less to man, for Jesus himself 
called all men " the sons of God." 

The doctrine of the " son of man" finds its most 
complete expression in the interview with Nicode- 
mus. Every man, Jesus says, aside from his con- 
sciousness of his material, individual life and of his 
birth in the flesh, has also a consciousness of a spir- 
itual birth (John iii. 5, 6, 7), of an inner liberty, of 
something within; this comes from on high, from 
the infinite that we call God (John iii. 14-17) ; now 
it is this inner consciousness born of God, the son 
of God in man, that we must possess and nourish if 
we would possess true life. The son of man is 
homogeneous (of the same race) with God. 

Whoever lifts up within himself this son of God, 
whoever identifies his life with the spiritual life, will 
not deviate from the true way. Men wander from 
the way because they do not believe in this light 



126 3IY RELIGION. 

which is within them, the light of which John 
speaks when he says, " In him teas life; and the life 
vxis the light of men." Jesus tells us to lift up the 
son of man, who is the son of God, for a liglit to all 
men. When we have lifted up the son of man, we 
shall then know that we can do nothing without his 
guidance (John viii. 28). Asked, " TTho is this 
son of man ?" Jesus answers : — 

" Yet a little ichile is the light in you} Walk icJiile 
ye have the lights lest darkness come uj)on you : for 
he that icalketh in darkness knoiceth not ichither he 
goeth." (John xii. 35.) 

The son of man is the light in every man that 
ought to illuminate his Hfe. " Take heed therefore, 
that the light ichich is in thee be not darkness" is 
Jesus' warning to the multitude (Luke xi. 35) . 

In all the different ages of humanity we find the 
same thought, that man is the receptacle of the 
divine light descended from heaven, and that this 
light is reason, which alone should be the object of 
our worship, since it alone can show the way to true 
well-being. This has been said by the Brahmins, 
by the Hebrew prophets, "by Confucius, by Soc- 
rates, by Marcus Aurelius, by Epictetus, and by all 
the true sages, — not by compilers of philosophical 
theories, but by men who sought goodness for them- 
selves and for others.^ And yet we declare, in 

1 In all the translations authorized by the Church, we find here a 
perhaps intentional error. The words iv ufuu, in you, are inva- 
riably rendered icith you. 

2 Marcus Aurelius says: " Reverence that which is best in the 



MT religion: 127 

accordance with the dogma of the redemption, that 
it is eutirel}' superfluous to think of the Hght that is 
in us, and that we ought not to speak of it at all ! 

We must, say the believers, study the three per- 
sons of the Trinity ; we must know the nature of 
each of these persons, and what sacraments we 
ought or ought not to perform, for our salvation 
depends, not on our own efforts, but on the Trinity 
and the regular performance of the sacraments. 
We must, say the sceptics, know the laws by which 
this infinitesimal particle of matter was evolved in 
infinite space and infinite time ; but it is absurd to 
believe that by reason alone we can secure true well- 
being, because the amelioration of man's condition 
does not depend upon man himself, but upon the 
laws that we are trying to discover. 

I firmly believe that, a few centuries hence, the 
history of what we call the scientific activity of this 

universe ; and this is that -which makes use of all things and 
directs all things. And in like manner also reverence that 
which is best in thyself ; and this is of the same kind as that. 
For in thyself, also, that which makes use of everything else, is 
this, and thy life is directed by this." (Meditations v. 21.) 

Epictetus says : "From God have descended the seeds not 
only to my father and grandfather, but to all beings which are 
generated on the earth and are produced, and particularly to 
rational beings; for these only are by their nature formed to 
have communion with God, being by means of reason conjoined 
with him." (Discourses, chap, ix.) 

Confucius says : " The law of the great learning consists 
in developing and re-establishing the luminous principle of 
reason which we have received from on high." This sentence is 
repeated many times, and constitutes the basis of Confucius' 
doctrine. 



128 MY religion: 

age will be a prolific subject for the hilarity and 
pity of future generations. For a number of cen- 
turies, they will say, the scholars of the western 
portion of a great continent were the victims of 
epidemic insanity ; they imagined themselves to be 
the possessors of a life of eternal beatitude, and 
they busied themselves with divers lucubrations in 
which they sought to determine in what way this 
life could be realized, without doing anything them- 
selves, or even concerning themselves with what 
they ought to do to ameliorate the life which they 
already had. And what to the future historian will 
seem much more melancholy, it will be found that 
this group of men had once had a master who 
had taught them a number of simple and clear 
rules, pointing out what they must do to render 
their lives happ}^, — and that the words of this 
master had been construed by some to mean that he 
would come on a cloud to re-organize human society, 
and by others as admirable docti'ine, but impracti- 
cable, since human life was not what they conceived 
it to be, and consequently was not worthy of con- 
sideration; as to human reason, it must concern 
itself with the study of the laws of an imaginary 
existence, without concerning itself about the wel- 
fare, of the individual man. 

The Church says that the doctrine of Jesus can- 
not be literally practised here on earth, because this 
earthly life is naturally evil, since it is only a shadow 
of the true life. The best way of living is to scorn 
this earthly existence, to be guided by faith (that is, 



3fY RELIGION. 129 

by imagination) in a happy and eternal life to come, 
and to continue to live a bad life here and to pray 
to the good God. 

Philosophy, science, and public opinion all say 
that the doctrine of Jesus is not applicable to 
human life as it now is, because the life of man 
does not depend upon the light of reason, but upon 
general laws ; hence it is useless to try to live abso- 
lutely conformable to reason ; we must live as we 
can with the firm conviction that according to the 
laws of historical and sociological progress, after 
having lived ver}' imperfectly for a very long time, 
we shall suddenly find that our lives have become 
very good. 

People come to a farm ; they find there all that is 
necessary to sustain life, — a house well furnished, 
barns filled with grain, cellars and store-rooms well 
stocked with provisions, implements of husbandry, 
horses and cattle, — in a word, all that is needed for 
a life of comfort and ease. Each wishes to profit 
by this abundance, but each for himself, without 
thinking of others, or of those who may come after 
him. Each wants the whole for himself, and begins 
to seize upon all that he can possibly grasp. Then 
begins a veritable pillage ; thej^ fight for the posses- 
sion of the spoils ; oxen and sheep are slaughtered ; 
wagons and other implements are broken up into 
firewood ; they fight for the milk and grain ; they 
grasp more than they can consume. No one is able 
to sit down to the tranquil enjoyment of what he 
has, lest another take away the spoils already 



130 MY RELIGION. 

secured, to surrender them in turn to some one 
stronger. All these people leave the farm, bruised 
and famished. Thereupon the Master puts every- 
thing to rights, aud arranges matters so that one may 
live there in peace. The farm is again a treasury 
of abundance. Then comes another group of 
seekers, and the same sti'uggle and tumult is re- 
peated, tiU these in their turn go away bruised and 
angry, cursing the Master for providing so little 
and so ill. The good Master is not discouraged ; he 
again provides for all that is needed to sustain life, 
— and the same incidents are repeated over and 
over again. 

Finally, among those who come to the farm, is one 
who says to his companions: "Comrades, how 
foolish we are ! see how abundantly everything is 
supplied, how well everything is arranged ! There is 
enough here for us and for those who will come 
after us ; let us act in a reasonable manner. In- 
stead of robbing each other, let us help one another. 
Let us work, plant, care for the dumb animals, and 
every one will be satisfied." Some of the company 
understand what this wise person says ; they cease 
from fighting and from robbing one another, and 
begin to work. But others, who have not heard the 
words of the wise man, or who distrust him, con- 
tinue their former pillage of the Master's goods. 
This condition of things lasts for a long time. 
Those who have followed, the counsels of the wise 
man say to those about them: "Cease from fight- 
ing, cease from wasting the Master's goods ; you 



MY RELIGION. 131 

will be bettor off for doing so ; follow the wise man's 
advice." Nevertheless, a great many do not hear 
ajid will not believe, and matters go on ver}^ much 
as they did before. 

All this is natural, and will continue as long as 
people do not believe the wise man's words. But, 
we are told, a time will come when every one on the 
farm will listen to and understand the words of the 
wise man, and will realize that God spoke through 
his lips, and that the wise man was himself none 
other than God in person ; and all will have faith in 
his words. Meanwhile, instead of living according 
to the advice of the wise man, each struggles for his 
own, and they sla}^ each other without pity, saying, 
"The struggle for existence is inevitable ; we can- 
not do otherwise." 

"What does it all mean ? Even the beasts graze in 
the fields without interfering with each other's needs, 
and men, after having learned the conditions of the 
true life, and after being convinced that God him- 
self has shown them how to live the true life, follow 
still their evil ways, saying that it is impossible to 
live otherwise. What should we think of the people 
at the farm if, after having heard the words of the 
wise man, they had continued to live as before, 
snatching the bread from each other's mouths, fight- 
ing, and trying to grasp everything, to their own 
loss ? We should say that they had misunderstood 
the wise man's words, and imagined things to be 
different from what they really were. The wise man 
said to them, " Your life here is bad; amend 3'our 



132 MT RELIGION. 

ways, and it will become good." And they imag- 
ined tliat the wise man had condemned their life on 
the farm, and had promised them another and a 
better life somewhere else. They decided that the 
farm was only a temporary dwelling-place, and that 
it was not worth while to try to live well there ; the 
important thing was not to be cheated out of the 
other life promised them elsewhere. This is the 
only way in which we can explain the strange con- 
duct of the people on the farm, of whom some 
believed that the wise man was God, and others that 
he was a man of wisdom, but all continued to live as 
before in defiance of the wise man's words. They 
understood everything but the one significant truth 
in the wise man's teachings, — that they must work 
out for themselves their own peace and happiness 
there on the farm, which they took for a temporary 
abode thinking all the time of the better life they 
were to possess elsewhere. 

Here is the origin of the strange declaration that 
the precepts of the wise man were admirable, even 
divine, but that they were difficult to practise. 

Oh, if men would only cease from evil wa3'S while 
waiting for the Christ to come in his chariot of fire 
to their aid ; if they would only cease to invoke the 
law of the differentiation or integration of forces, or 
any historical law whatever ! None will come to 
their aid if they do not aid themselves. And to aid 
ourselves to a better life, we need expect nothing 
from heaven or from earth ; we need only to cease 
from ways that result in our own loss. 



CHAPTER Vin. 

IF it be admitted that the doctrine of Jesus is per- 
fectly reasonable, and that it alone can give to 
men true happiness, what would be the condition of 
a single follower of that doctrine in the midst of a 
world that did not practise it at all? If all men 
would decide at the same time to obey, its practice 
would then be possible. But one man alone cannot 
act in defiance of the whole world ; and so we hear 
continually this plea : " If, among men who do not 
practise the doctrine of Jesus, I alone obey it ; if I 
give away all that I possess ; if I turn the other cheek ; 
if I refuse to take an oath or to go to war, I should 
find myself in profound isolation ; if I did not die of 
hunger, I should be beaten ; if I survived that, I 
should be cast into prison ; I should be shot, and 
all the happiness of my life — my life itself — would 
be sacrificed in vain." 

This plea is founded upon the doctrine of quid pro 
quo, which is the basis of all arguments against the 
possibility of practising the doctrine of Jesus. It is 
the current objection, and I sympathized with it in 
common with all the rest of the world, until I finally 
broke entirely away from the dogmas of the Church 
which prevented me from understanding the true sig- 
nificance of the doctrine of Jesus. Jesus prepared 
his doctrine as a means of salvation from the life of 



134 MY RELIGION. 

perdition organized by men contrary to his precepts ; 
and I declared that 1 should be very glad to follow 
this doctrine if it were not for fear of this verj- per- 
dition. Jesus offered me the true remedy against a 
life of perdition, and I clung to the life of perdition ! 
from which it was plain that I did not consider this 
life as a life of perdition, but as something good, 
something real. The conviction that my personal, 
worldly life was something real and good constituted 
the misunderstanding, the obstacle, that prevented 
me from comprehending Jesus' doctrine. Jesus 
knew the disposition of men to regard their personal, 
worldl}' life as real and good, and so, in a series of 
apothegms and parables, he taught them that they 
had no right to hfe, and that the}" were given life 
only that they might assure themselves of the true 
life by renouncing their worldly and fantastic organ- 
ization of existence. 

To understand what is meant by " saving " one's 
life, according to the doctrine of Jesus, we must first 
understand what the prophets, what Solomon, what 
Buddha, what all the wise men of the world have 
said about the personal life of man. But, as Pascal 
says, we cannot endure to think upon this theme, 
and so we carry always before us a screen to conceal 
the abyss of death, toward which we are constantly 
moving. It suffices to reflect on the isolation of the 
personal life of man, to be convinced that this life, 
in so far as it is personal, is not only of no account 
to each separately, but that it is a cruel jest to heart 
and reason. To understand the doctrine of Jesus, 



3fY religion: 135 

we must, before all, return to ourselves, reflect 
soberly, undergo the fierdvota of which John the Bap- 
tist, the precursor of Jesus, speaks, when addressing 
himself to men of clouded judgment. "Repent" 
(such was his preaching) ; "repent, have another 
mind, or you shall all perish. The axe is laid unto 
the root of the trees. Death and perdition await 
each one of you. Be warned, turn back, repent." 
And Jesus declared, " Except ye reiDent^ ye shall all 
likeioise perish.''' When Jesus was told of the death 
of the Galileans massacred by Pilate, he said : — 

" Suppose ye that these Galileans tvere sinners above 
all the Galileans, because they suffered such things? 
I tell you, Nay : hut, except ye repent, ye shall all liJce- 
ivise perish. Or those eighteen upon ivhom the toiuer 
in Siloam fell, and sleio them, think ye that they icere 
sinners above all men that dioelt in Jerusalem f I tell 
you, Nay : but, except ye repent, ye shall cdl likewise 
pierish.'' (Luke xiii. 1-5.) 

If he had lived in our day, in Russia, he would 
have said : " Think you that those who perished in 
the circus at Berditchef or on the slopes of Koukou3'ef 
were sinners above all others ? I teU you. No ; but 
you, if you do not repent, if you do not arouse your- 
selves, if you do not find in your life that which is 
imperishable, you also shall perish. You are horri- 
fied by the death of those crushed by the tower, 
burned in the circus ; but your death, equally as 
frightful and as inevitable, is here, before you. You 
are wrong to conceal it or to forget it ; uulooked for, 
it is only more hideous." 



136 MY RELIGION. 

To the people of his own time he said : — 

" When ye see a cloud rise out of the icest, straight- 
tcay ye say, There cometh a shower ; and so it is. 
And when ye see the south ivind blow, ye say, There 
will be heat; and it cometh to i)ctss. Ye hypocrites, 
ye can discern the face of the sJcy and of the earth; but 
hoio is it that ye do not discern this time? Yea, and 
why even of yourselves judge ye not what is right V* 
(Luke xii. 54-57.) 

We know how to interpret the signs of the weather ; 
why, then, do we not see what is before us? It is 
in Tain that we fly from danger, and guard our mate- 
rial life by all imaginable means ; in spite of all, 
death is before us, if not in one way, then in another ; 
if not by massacre, or the falling of a tower, then in 
our beds, amidst much greater suffering. 

Make a simple calculation, as those do who under- 
take any worldly project, any enterprise whatever, 
such as the construction of a house, or the purchase 
of an estate, such as those make who labor with the 
hope of seeing their calculations realized. 

' ' For ichich of you intending to build a toiver, sit- 
teth not dozen first, and counteth the cost ichether he 
have sufficient to finish it? Lest haply, after he hath 
laid the foundation, and is not able to finish it, all that 
behold it begin to mock him, saying, TJiis man began 
to build, and teas not able to finish. Or what king, 
going to make war against another king, sitteth not 
down first and consulteth ichether he be able with ten 
thousand to meet him that cometh against him with 
twenty thousand?'' (Luke xiv. 28-31.) 



MT RELIGION. 137 

Is it not the act of a madman to labor at what, 
under any circumstances, one can never finish? 
Death will always come before the edifice of worldly 
prosperity can be completed. And if we knew before- 
hand that, however we may stmggie with death, it 
is not we, but death, that will triumph ; is it not an 
indication that we ought not to struggle with death, 
or to set our hearts upon that which will surely per- 
ish, but to seek to perform the task whose results 
cannot be destroyed by our inevitable departure ? 

'•'' And he said unto his disciples, TJierefore I say 
unto you, Take no thought for your life ivhat ye shall 
eat; neither for the body, what ye shall put on. The 
life is more than meat and the body is more than rai- 
ment. Consider the ravens : for they neither sow nor 
reap; which neither have storehouse nor ham; and 
God feedeth them : Hoiv much more are ye better than 
the fowls f And ivhich of you ivith taking thought can 
add to his stature one cubit? If ye then be not able to 
do that tiling ivhich is least, why take ye thought for 
the rest? Consider the lilies how they groiv : they toil 
not, they spin not; and yet I say unto you that Solo- 
mon in all his glory icas not arrayed like one of these.'* 
(Luke xii. 22-27.) 

Whatever pains we may take for our nourishment, 
for the care of the body, we cannot prolong life by 
a single hour.^ Is it not folly to trouble ourselves 
about a thing that we cannot possibly accomplish ? 

1 The words of verse 25 are incorrectly translated; the 
word 7]XiKiav means age, age of life : consequently the whole 
phrase should be rendered: can add one hour to his life. 



138 MT RELIGION. 

We know perfectly well that our material life wiD 
end with death, and we give ourselves up to evil to 
procure riches. Life cannot be measured by what 
we possess ; if we think so, we only delude our- 
selves. Jesus tells us that the meaning of life does 
not lie in what we possess or in what we can accu- 
mulate, but in something entirely different. He 
says : — 

' ' The ground of a certain ricJi man brought forth 
plentifully: And he thought loithin himself saying^ 
Wliat shall I do, because I have no room ivhere to 
bestow my fruits? And he said, This ivill I do : I 
will pull dozen my bams, and build greater; and there 
will I bestow all my fruits and my goods. And I will 
say to my soid, Soul, thou hast much goods laid up 
for many years; take thine ease, eat, drink, and be 
merry. But God said unto him. Thou fool, this night 
thy sold shall be required of thee : then luhose shall 
those things be, which thou hast provided? So is he 
that layeth iqj treasure for himself, and is not rich 
toiuard God." (Luke xii. 16-21.) 

Death threatens us every moment ; Jesus says : — 
' ' Let your loins be girded about, and your lights 
burning; and ye yourselves like unto men that wait 
for their lord, luhen he will return from the wedding; 
that, ichen he cometh and knocketh, they may open 
unto him immediately. Blessed are those servants, 
whom the lord ivhen he cometh shall find ivatching ; 
. . . And if he shall come in the second watch, or 
come in the third watch, and find them so, blessed are 
those servants. And this knoiv, that if the goodman 



MY RELIGION. 139 

of the hoKse had knoicn ichat hour the thief ivould 
come, he icould have tcatched., and not have suffered 
his ho7(se to be broken through. Be ye therefore ready 
also : for the son of man cometh at an hour ichen ye 
think not.'' (Luke xii. 35-40.) 

The parable of the virgins waiting for the bride- 
groom, that of the consummation of the age and the 
last judgment, as the commentators all agree, are 
designed to teach that death awaits us at every 
moment. Death awaits us at every moment. Life 
is passed in sight of death. If we labor for our- 
selves alone, for our personal future, we know that 
what awaits us in the future is death. And death 
will destroy all the fruits of our labor. Conse- 
quently, a life for self can have ho meaning. The 
reasonable life is different ; it has another aim than 
the poor desires of a single individual. The reason- 
able life consists in living in such a way that life 
cannot be destroyed by death. "We are troubled 
about many things, but only one thing is necessary. 

From the moment of his birth, man is menaced by 
an inevitable peril, that is, by a life deprived of 
meaning, and a wretched death, if he does not dis- 
cover the thing essential to the true life. Now it is 
precisely this one thing which insures the true life 
that Jesus reveals to men. He invents nothing, he 
promises nothing through divine power ; side by side 
with this personal life, which is a delusion, he simply 
reveals to men the truth. 

In the parable of the husbandmen (Matt. xxi. 
33-42) , Jesus explains the cause of that blindness in 



140 3fY RELIGIOy. 

men which conceals the truth from them, and which |i 
impels them to take the apparent for the real, their 
personal life for the true life. Certain men, having j 
leased a vineyard, imagined that they were its mas- 
ters. And this delusion leads them into a series of 
foolish and cruel actions, which ends in their exile. 
So each one of us imagines that life is his personal 
property, and that he has a right to enjoy it in such 
a way as may seem to him good, without recogniz- t 
ing any obligation to others. And the inevitable il 
consequence of this delusion is a series of foolish 
and cruel actions followed by exclusion from life. 
And as the husbandmen killed the servants and at 
last the son of the householder, thinking that the 
more cruel they were, the better able they would be 
to gain their ends, so we imagine that we shall ob- 
tain the greatest security by means of violence. '■^ 

Expulsion, the inevitable sentence visited upon 
the husbandmen for having taken to themselves the 
fruits of the vine3'ard, awaits also all men who 
imagine that the personal life is the true life. Death 
expels them from life ; they are replaced by others, 
as a consequence of the en-or which led them to 
misconceive the meaning of hfe. As the husband- 
men forgot, or did not wish to remember, that they 
had received a vineyard already hedged about and 
provided with winepress and tower, that some one 
had labored for them and expected them to labor in 
their turn for others ; — so the men who would live 
for themselves forget, or do not wish to remember, 
all that has been done for them during their life ; 



j MY RELIGION. 141 

I they forget that they are under an obligation to labor 
iiu their turn, and that all the blessings of life which 
I they enjoy are fruits that they ought to divide with 
i others. 

' This new manner of looking at life, this ixerdvoia, 
lor repentance, is the corner-stone of the doctrine of 
Jesus. According to this doctrine, men ought to 
understand and feel that they are insolvent, as the 
husbandmen should have understood and felt that 
they were insolvent to the householder, unable to 
pay the debt contracted b}' generations past, present, 
and to come, with the overruling power. They 
ought to feel that every hour of their existence is 
onh' a mortgage upon this debt, and that every man 
who, b}^ a selfish life, rejects this obligation, sepa- 
rates himself from the principle of life, and so for- 
feits life. Each one should remember that in striving 
to save his own life, his personal life, he loses the 
true life, as Jesus so many times said. The true 
life is the life which adds something to the store of 
happiness accumulated by past generations, which 
increases this heritage in the present, and hands it 
down to the future. To take part in this true life, 
man should renounce his personal will for the will of 
the Father, who gives this life to man. In John viii. 
35, we read: — 

" And the servant ahidetli not in the house forever : 
hut the son ahkleth forever.'^ 

That is, oul}" the son who observes the will of the 
father shall have eternal life. Now, the will of the 
Father of Life is not the personal, selfish life, but 



142 MY religion: 

the filial life of the son of man ; and so a man saves 
his life when he considers it as a pledge, as soraethiDg 
confided to him b}^ the Father for the profit of all, as 
something with which to live the life of the son of 
man. 

A man, about to travel into a far country, called his 
servants together and divided among them his goods. 
Although receiving no precise instructions as to the 
manner in which they were to use these goods, some 
of the servants understood that the goods still be- 
longed to the master, and that they ought to employ 
them for the master's gain. And the servants who 
had labored for the good of the master were rewarded, 
while the others, M^ho had not so labored, "rere de- 
spoiled even of what they had received. (Matt. xxv. 
14-46.) 

The life of the son of man has been given to all 
men, and they know not why. Some of them under- 
stand that life is not for their personal use, but that 
they must use it for the good of the son of man ; 
others, feigning not to understand the true object of 
life, refuse to labor for the son of man ; and those 
that labor for the true life will be united with the 
source of life ; those that do not so labor, will lose 
the life they already have. Jesus tells us in what 
the service of the son of man consists and what will 
be the recompense of that service. The son of man, 
endowed with kingly authority, will call upon the 
faithful to inherit the ti^ue life ; they have fed the 
hungry, given drink to the thirsty, clothed and con- 
soled the wretched, and in so doing they have minis- 



31 Y religion: 143 

tered to the son of man, who is the same in all men ; 
the}' have not lived the personal life, but the life of 
the son of man, and they are given the life eternal. 
According to all the Gospels, the object of Jesus' 
teaching was the life eternal. And, strange as it 
may seem, Jesus, who is supposed to have been 
raised in person, and to have promised a general 
resurrection, — Jesus not only said nothing in 
affirmation of individual resurrection and individual 
immortality beyond the grave, but on the contrary, 
every time that he met with this superstition (in- 
troduced at this period into the Talmud, and of 
which there is not a trace in the records of the 
Hebrew prophets), he did not fail to deny its 
truth. The Pharisees and the Sadducees were con- 
stantly discussing the subject of the resurrection of 
the dead. The Pharisees believed in the resurrec- 
tion of the dead, in angels, and in spirits (Acts 
xxiii. 8) , but the Sadducees did not believe in resur- 
rection, or angel, or spirit. We do not know the 
source of the difference in belief, but it is certain 
that it was one of the polemical subjects among the 
secondary questions of the Hebraic doctrine that 
were constantly under discussion in the S3'nagogues. 
And Jesus not only did not recognize the resurrec- 
tion, but denied it every time he met with the idea. 
When the Sadducees demanded of Jesus, supposing 
that he believed with the Pharisees in the resurrec- 
tion, to which of the seven brethren the woman 
should belong, he refuted with clearness and pre- 
cision the idea of individual resurrection, saying 



144 MT RELIGION. 

that on this subject they erred, knowing neither the 
Scriptures nor the power of God. Those who are 
worthy of resurrection, he said, will remain like the 
angels of heaven (Mark xii. 21-24) ; and with 
regard to the dead : — 

" Have ye not read in the hook of Moses, Jioio in 
the hush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of 
Ahraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of 
Jacoh ?^ He is not the God of the dead, hut the God 
of the living: ye, therefore, do greatly err." (Mark 
xii. 26, 27.) 

Jesus' meaning was that the dead are living in 
God. God said to Moses, " I am the God of Abra- 
ham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob." To God, all 
those who have lived the life of the son of man, are 
living. Jesus affirmed only this, that whoever lives 
in God, will be united to God ; and he admitted no 
other idea of the resurrection. As to personal 
resurrection, strange as it may appear to those who 
have never carefully studied the Gospels for them- 
selves, Jesus said nothing about it whatever. 

If, as the theologians teach, the foundation of the 
Christian faith is the resurrection of Jesus, is it not 
strange that Jesus, knowing of his own resurrection, 
knowing that in this consisted the principal dogma 
of faith in him — is it not strange that Jesus did not 
speak of the matter at least once, in clear and pre- 
cise terms ? Now, according to the canonical Gos- 
pels, he not only did not speak of it in clear and 
precise terms ; he did not speak of it at all, not once, 
not a single word. 

1 Exod. iii. 6. 



MY RELIGION. 145 

The doctrine of Jesus consisted in the elevation 
of the son of man, that is, in the recognition on 
the part of man, that he, man, was the son of God. 
In his own individualitj' Jesus personified the man 
who has recognized the filial relation with God. He 
asked his disciples whom men said that he was — 
the son of man? His disciples replied that some 
took him for John the Baptist, and some for Elijah. 
Then came the question, " But icJiom say ye that I 
am?'' And Peter answered, " TIwu art the Messiah^ 
the son of the living God.'' Jesus responded, 
'■^ Flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee., hut 
my Father tchich is in heaven;" meaning that Peter 
understood, not through faith in human explana- 
tions, but because, feeling himself to be the son of 
God, he understood that Jesus was also the son 
of God. And after having explained to Peter that 
the true faith is founded upon the perception of the 
filial relation to God, Jesus charged his other dis- 
ciples that they should tell no man that he was the 
Messiah. After this, Jesus told them that although 
he might suffer many things and be put to death, 
he, that is his doctrine, would be triumphantly 
re-established. And these words are interpreted as 
a prophecy of the resurrection (Matt. xvi. 13-21). 

Of the thirteen passages^ which are interpreted 
as prophecies of Jesus in regard to his own resur- 

1 John xi. 19-22 ; Matt. xii. 40 ; Luke xi. 30 ; jNIatt. xvi. 21 ; 
Mark viii. 31 ; Luke ix. 22 ; Matt. xvii. 23 ; Mark ix. 31 ; Matt. 
XX. 19 ; Mark x. 34 ; Luke xviii. 33 ; Matt. xxvi. 32 ; Mark 
xiv. 25. 



146 MY RELIGION. 

rection, two refer to Jonah in the whale's belly, 
another to the rebuilding of the temple. The 
others affirm that the son • of man shall not be 
destroyed ; but there is not a word about the resur- 
rection of Jesus. In none of these passages is the 
word "resurrection" found in the original text. 
Ask any one who is ignorant of theological inter- 
pretations, but who knows Greek, to translate them, 
and he will never agree with the received versions. 
In the original we find two different words, avto-r^/xt 
and eyeipoi, which are rendered in the sense of resurrec- 
tion ; one of these words means to " re-establish " ; 
the other means "to awaken, to rise up, to arouse 
one's self." But neither the one nor the other can 
ever, in any case, mean to " resuscitate" — to raise 
from the dead. With regard to these Greek words 
and the corresponding Hebrew word, qum^ we have 
only to examine the scriptural passages where 
these words are employed, as they are very fre- 
quently, to see that in no case is the meaning "to 
resuscitate" admissible. The word voskresnovit, 
auferstehn, resusciter — "to resuscitate" — did not 
exist in the Greek or Hebrew tongues, for the 
reason that the conception corresponding to this 
word did not exist. To express the idea of resur- 
rection in Greek or in Hebrew, it is necessary to 
employ a periphrasis, meaning, "is arisen, has 
awakened among the dead." Thus, in the Gospel 
of Matthew (xiv. 2) where reference is made to 
Herod's belief that John the Baptist had been re- 
suscitated, we read, avTO'i rjyepSrj airo rdv veKpcov, 



MY RELIGION. 147 

"has awakened among the dead." In the same 
manner, in Luke (xvi. 31), at the close of the par- 
able of Lazarus, where it said that if men believe 
not the prophets, they would not believe even though 
one be resuscitated, we find the periphrasis, eav rts 
Ik v^Kpoiv dvao-T^, "if One arose among the dead." 
But, if in these passages the words " among the 
dead " were not added to the words ' ' arose or 
awakened," the last two could never signify resusci- 
tation. When Jesus spoke of himself, he did not 
once use the words "among the dead" in any of 
the passages quoted in support of the affirmation 
that Jesus foretold his own resurrection. 

Our conception of the resurrection is so entirely 
foreign to an}' idea that the Hebrews possessed with 
regard to life, that we cannot even imagine how 
Jesus would have been able to talk to them of the 
resurrection, and of an eternal, individual life, 
which should be the lot of every man. The idea 
of a future eternal life comes neither from Jewish 
doctrine nor from the doctrine of Jesus, but from 
an entireh' different source. We are obliged to 
believe that belief in a future life is a primitive and 
crude conception based upon a confused idea of the 
resemblance between death and sleep, — an idea 
common to all savage races. 

The Hebraic doctrine (and much more the Chris- 
tian doctrine) was far above this conception. But 
we are so convinced of the elevated character of this 
superstition, that we use it as a proof of the superi- 
ority of GUI' doctrine to that of the Chinese or the 



148 3/r RELIGION. 

Hindus, who do not believe in it at all. Not the 
theologians only, but the free-thinkers, the learned 
historians of rehgions, such as Tiele, and Max 
Miiller, make use of the same argument. In their 
classification of religions, they give the first place 
to those which recognize the superstition of the 
resurrection, and declare them to be far superior to 
those not professing that belief. Schopenhauer 
boldly denounced the Hebraic religion as the most 
despicable of all religions because it contains not a 
trace of this belief. Not only the idea itself, but all 
means of expressing it, were wanting to the Hebraic 
religion. Eternal life is in Hebrew liayail eolam. By 
olam is meant the infinite, that which is permanent 
in the limits of time ; olam also means " world" or 
"cosmos." Universal life, and much more liayai 
leolam, "eternal life," is, according to the Jewish 
doctrine, the attribute of God alone. God is the 
God of life, the living God. Man, according to 
the Hebraic idea, is always mortal. God alone is 
always living. In the Pentateuch, the expression 
"eternal life" is twice met with ; once in Deuter- 
onomy and once in Genesis. God is represented as 
saying: — 

" See now that J, even I, am he, 
And there is no god with me : 
I Mil, and I make alive ; 
I have icounded, and I heal : 
And there is none that can deliver out of my 
hand. 



MT RELIGION. 149 

For I lift up my hand to heaven, 
And say, As I live forecer." 

(Dent, xxxii. 39, 40.) 

*' And Jehovah said, Behold, the man is become as 
one of us, to know good and evil; and noiv, lest he 
put forth his hand, and take also the tree of life, and 
live forever." (Gen. iii. 22.) 

These two sole instances of the use of the expres- 
sion ' • eternal life " in the Old Testament (with the 
exception of another instance in the apocryphal 
book of Daniel) determine clearly the Hebraic con- 
ception of the life of man and the life eternal. Life 
itself, according to the Hebrews, is eternal, is in 
God ; but man is always mortal : it is his natm-e to 
be so. According to the Jewish doctrine, man as 
man, is mortal. He has life only as it passes from 
one generation to another, and is so perpetuated in 
a race. According to the Jewish doctrine, the 
faculty of life exists in the people. When God said, 
"Ye may live, and not die," he addressed these 
words to the people. The life that God breathed 
into man is mortal for each separate human being ; 
this life is perpetuated from generation to generation, 
if men fulfil the union with God, that is, obey the 
conditions imposed by God. After having pro- 
pounded the Law, and having told them that this 
Law was to be found not in heaven, but in their own 
hearts, Moses said to the people : — 

" See, I have set before thee this day life and good, 
and death and evil; in thai I command thee this day 



150 MT RELIGION. 

to love the Eternal, to walk in his ways, and to keep 
his commandments, that thou may est live. . . . I 
call heaven and earth to icitness against you this 
day, that I have set before thee life and death, the 
blessing and the curse: therefore choose life, that thou 
mayest live, thou and thy seed : to love the Eternal, 
to obey his voice, and to cleave unto him : for he is 
thy life, and the length of thy days." (Deut. xxx. 
15-19.) 

The principal difference between our conception 
of human life and that possessed by the Jews is, 
that while we believe that our mortal life, transmitted 
from generation to generation, is not the true life, 
but a fallen life, a life temporarily depraved, — the 
Jews, on the contrary, believed this life to be the 
true and supreme good, given to man on condition 
that he obey the will of God. From our point of 
view, the transmission of the fallen life from genera- 
tion to generation is the transmission of a curse ; 
from the Jewish point of view, it is the supreme good 
to which man can attain, on condition that he ac- 
complish the will of God. It is precisely upon the 
Hebraic conception of life that Jesus founded his 
doctrine of the ti'ue or eternal life, which he con- 
trasted with the personal and mortal life. Jesus 
said to the Jews : — 

^''Search the Scriptures; for in them ye think ye 
have eternal life : and they are they which testify of 
me.'' (John v. 39.) 

To the young man who asked what he must do to 
have eternal life, Jesus said in reply, " If thou wilt 



MT RELIGION. 151 

enter into life, "keep the commandments.^^ He did 
not say "the eternal life," but simply "the life" 
(Matt. xix. 17). To the same question propounded 
by the scribe, the answer was, " This do, and 
thou shalt live " (Luke x. 28) , once more promising 
life, but saying nothing of eternal life. From these 
two instances, we know what Jesus meant by eternal 
life ; whenever he made use of the phrase in speak- 
ing to the Jews, he emploj'ed it in exactly the same 
sense in which it was expressed in their own law, — 
the accomplishment of the will of G-od. In contrast 
with the life that is temporary, isolated, and per- 
sonal, Jesus taught of the eternal life promised by 
God to Israel — with this difference, that while the 
Jews believed the eternal life was to be perpetuated 
solely by their chosen people, and that whoever 
wished to possess this life must follow the excep- 
tional laws given by God to Israel, — the doctrine 
of Jesus holds that the eternal life is perpetuated in 
the son of man, and that to obtain it we must prac- 
tise the commandments of Jesus, who summed up 
the will of God for all humanity. 

As opposed to the personal life, Jesus taught us, 
not of a life beyond the grave, but of that universal 
life which comprises within itself the life of humanity, 
past, present, and to come. According to the 
Jewish doctrine, the personal life could be saved 
from death only by accomplishing the will of God as 
propounded in the Mosaic law. On this condition 
only the life of the Jewish race would not perish, 
but would pass from generation to generation of the 



152 MY RELIGION'. 

chosen people of God. According to the doctrine 
of Jesus, the personal life is saved from death by 
the accomplishment of the will of God as propounded 
in the commandments of Jesus. On this condition 
alone the personal life does not perish, but becomes 
eternal and immutable, in union with the son of man. 
The difference is, that while the religion given by 
Moses was that of a people for a national God, the 
religion of Jesus is the expression of the aspirations 
of all humanity. The perpetuity of life in the pos- 
terity of a people is doubtful, because the people 
itself may disappear, and perpetuity depends upon 
a posterity in the flesh. Perpetuity of life, accord- 
ing to the doctrine of Jesus, is indubitable, because 
life, according to his doctrine, is an attribute of all 
humanity in the son of man who lives in harmony 
with the will of God. 

If we believe that Jesus' words concerning the last 
judgment and the consummation of the age, and 
other words reported in the Gospel of John, are a 
promise of a life beyond the grave for the souls of 
men, — if we believe this, it is none the less true that 
his teachings in regard to the light of life and the 
kingdom of God have the same meaning for us that 
they had for his hearers eighteen centuries ago ; that 
is, that the only real life is the life of the son of man 
conformable to the will of the Giver of Life. It is 
easier to admit this than to admit that the doctrine 
of the true life, conformable to the will of the Giver 
of Life, contains the promise of the immortality of 
life beyond the grave. 



MY RELIGION. 153 

Perhaps it is right to think that man, after this 
terrestrial life passed in the satisfaction of personal 
desires, will enter upon the possession of an eternal 
personal life in paradise, there to taste all imagina- 
ble enjoyments ; but to beheve that this is so, to 
endeavor to persuade ourselves that for our good 
actions we shall be recompensed with eternal felicity, 
and for our bad actions punished with eternal tor- 
ments, — to believe this, does not aid us in under- 
standing the doctrine of Jesus, but, on the contrary, 
takes away the principal foundation of that doc- 
trine. The entire doctrine of Jesus inculcates 
renunciation of the personal, imaginary life, and a 
merging of this personal life in the universal life of 
humanity, in the life of the son of man. Now the 
doctrine of the individual immortality of the soul 
does not impel us to renounce the personal life ; on 
the contrary, it affirms the continuance of individu- 
ality forever. 

The Jews, the Chinese, the Hindus, all men who 
do not believe in the dogma of the fall and the 
redemption, conceive of life as it is. A man lives, 
is united with a woman, engenders children, cares 
for them, grows old, and dies. His life continues 
in his children, and so passes on from one genera- 
tion to another, like everything else in the world, — 
stones, metals, earth, plants, animals, stars. Life 
is life, and we must make the best of it. 

To live for self alone, for the animal life, is not 
reasonable. And so men, from their earliest exist- 
ence, have sought for some reason for living aside 



154 MT religion: 

from the gratification of their own desires ; they live 
for their children, for their families, for their nation, 
for humanity, for all that does not die with the per- 
sonal life. 

But according to the doctrine of the Church, 
human life, the supreme good that we possess, is 
but a very small portion of another life of which we 
are deprived for a season. Our life is not the life 
that God intended to give us or such as is our due. 
Our life is degenerate and fallen, a mere fragment, 
a mockery, compared with the real life to which we 
think ourselves entitled. The principal object of 
life is not to try to live this mortal life conformably 
to the will of the Giver of Life ; or to render it eter- 
nal in the generations, as the Hebrews believed ; or 
to identify ourselves with the will of God, as Jesus 
taught ; no, it is to believe that after this unreal life 
the ti'ue life will begin. 

Jesus did not speak of the imaginary life that we 
believe to be our due, and that God did not give to 
us for some unexplained reason. The theory of the 
fall of Adam, of eternal life in paradise, of an 
immortal soul breathed by God into Adam, was 
unknown to Jesus ; he never spoke of it, never 
made the slightest allusion to its existence. Jesus 
spoke of life as it is, as it must be for all men ; we 
speak of an imaginary life that has never existed. 
How, then, can we understand the docti'ine of 
Jesus ? 

Jesus did not anticipate such a singular change of 
view in his disciples. He supposed that all men 



MY religion: 155 

understood that the destruction of the personal life 
is inevitable, and he revealed to them an imperisha- 
ble life. He offers true peace to them that suffer ; 
but to those who believe that they are certain to 
possess more than Jesus gives, his doctrine can be 
of no value. How shall I persuade a man to toil in 
return for food and clothing if this man is persuaded 
that he already possesses gi'eat riches ? Evidently 
he will pay no attention to my exhortations. So it 
is with regard to the docti'ine of Jesus. 'Why 
should I toil for bread when I can be rich without 
labor ? TThy should I trouble myself to live this life 
according to the will of God when I am sure of a 
personal life for all eternity ? 

That Jesus Christ, as the second person of the 
Trinity, as God made manifest in the flesh, was the 
salvation of men ; that he took upon himself the 
penalty for the sin of Adam and the sins of all men ; 
that he atoned to the first person of the Trinity for 
the sins of humanity ; that he instituted the Church 
and the sacraments for our salvation — believing 
this, we are saved, and shall enter into the possession 
of personal, eternal life beyond the grave. But 
meanwhile we cannot deny that he has saved and 
still saves men by revealing to them their inevitable 
loss, showing them that he is the way, the truth, 
and the life, the true way to life instead of the false 
way to the personal life that men had heretofore 
followed. 

If there are any who doubt the life beyond the 
grave and salvation based upon redemption, no one 



156 MY religion: 

can doubt the salvation of all men, and of each 
individual man, if they will accept the evidence of 
the destruction of the personal life, and follow the 
true way to safety by bringing their personal wills 
into harmony with the will of God. Let each man 
endowed with reason ask himself, What is life ? and 
What is death ? and let him try to give to life and 
death any other meaning than that revealed by 
Jesus, and he will find that any attempt to find in 
life a meaning not based upon the renunciation of 
self, the service of humanity, of the son of man, is 
utterly futile. It cannot be doubted that the per- 
sonal life is condemned to destruction, and that a life 
conformable to the will of God alone gives the possi- 
bility of salvation. It is not much in comparison 
with the sublime belief in the future life ! It is not 
much, but it is sure. 

I am lost with my companions in a snow-storm. 
One of them assures me with the utmost sincerity 
that he sees a light in the distance, but it is onl}^ a 
mirage which deceives us both ; we strive to reach 
this light, but we never can find it. Another reso- 
lutely brushes away the snow ; he seeks and finds the 
road, and he cries to us, "Go not that way, the 
light you see is false, you will wander to destruc- 
tion ; here is the road, I feel it beneath my feet ; we 
are saved." It is very little, we say. We had faith 
in that light that gleamed in our deluded eyes, that 
told us of a refuge, a warm shelter, rest, deliver- 
ance, — and now in exchange for it we have nothing 
but the road. Ah, but if we continue to travel 



MY RELIGION. 157 

toward the imaginary light, we shall perish ; if we 
follow the road, we shall surely arrive at a haven of 
safety. 

What, then, must I do if I alone understand the 
doctrine of Jesus, and I alone have trust in it among 
a people who neither understand it nor obey it? 
What ought I to do, to live like the rest of the world, 
or to live according to the doctrine of Jesus? I 
understood the doctrine of Jesus as expressed in his 
commandments, and I believed that the practice of 
these commandments would bring happiness to me 
and to all men. I understood that the fulfilment of 
these commandments is the will of God, the source 
of life. More than this, I saw that I should die like 
a brute after a farcical existence if I did not fulfil the 
will of God, and that the only chance of salvation 
la}' in the fulfilment of His will. In following the 
example of the world about me, I should unques- 
tionably act contrary to the welfare of all men, and, 
above all, contrary to the will of the Giver of Life ; 
I should surely forfeit the sole possibility of better- 
ing my desperate condition. In following the doc- 
trine of Jesus, I should continue the work common 
to all men who had lived before me ; I should con- 
tribute to the welfare of my fellows, and of those 
who were to live after me ; I should obey the com- 
mand of the Giver of Life ; I should seize upon the 
only hope of salvation. 

The circus at Berditchef -^ is in flames. A crowd 
of people are struggling before the only place of 

1 A city in Kussia become famous by a recent catastrophe. 



158 MT RELIGION. 

exit, — a door that opens inward. Suddeul}', in the 
midst of the crowd, a voice rings out: "Back, 
stand back from the door ; the closer you press 
against it, the less the chance of escape ; stand 
back ; that is your only chance of safety ! " 
Whether I am alone in understanding this com- 
mand, or whether others with me also hear and 
understand, I have but one duty, and that is, from 
the moment I have heard and understood, to fall 
back from the door and to call upon every one to 
obey the voice of the saviour. I may be suffocated, 
I may be crushed beneath the feet of the multitude, 
I may perish ; my sole chance of safety is to do the 
one thing necessary to gain an exit. And I can do 
nothing else. A saviour should be a saviour, that 
is, one who saves. And the salvation of Jesus is 
the true salvation. He came, he preached his doc- 
trine, and humanity is saved. 

The circus may burn in an hour, and those 
penned up in it may have no time to escape. But 
the world has been burning for eighteen hundred 
3'ears ; it has burned ever since Jesus said, " I am 
come to send fire on the earth;" and I suffer as it 
burns, and it will continue to burn until humanity 
is saved. Was not this fire kindled that men might 
have the felicity of salvation ? Understanding this, 
I understood and believed that Jesus is not only 
the Messiah, that is, the Anointed One, the Christ, 
but that he is in truth the Saviour of the world. I 
know that he is the only way, that there is no other 
way for me or for those who are tormented with me 



MY RELIGION. 159 

in this life. I know, that for me as for all, there is 
no other safety than the fulfilment of the com- 
mandments of Jesus, who gave to all humanity the 
greatest conceivable sum of benefits. 

Would there be great trials to endure ? Should I 
die in following the doctrine of Jesus ? This ques- 
tion did not alarm me. It might seem frightful to 
any one who does not realize the nothingness and 
absurdit}^ of an isolated personal life, and who be- 
lieves that he will never die. But I know that my 
life, considered in relation to my individual happi- 
ness, is, taken by itself, a stupendous farce, and 
that this meaningless existence will end in a stupid 
death. Knowing this, I have nothing to fear. I 
shall die as others die who do not observe the doc- 
trine of Jesus ; but my life and my death will have 
a meaning for myself and for others. M}^ life and 
my death will have added something to the life and 
salvation of others, and this will be in accordance 
with the doctrine of Jesus. 



CHAPTER IX. 

LET all the world practise the doctrine of Jesus, 
and the reign of God will come upon earth ; if 
I alone practise it, I shall do what I can to better 
my own condition and the condition of those about 
me. There is no salvation aside from the fulfilment 
of the doctrine of Jesus. But who will give me the 
strength to practise it, to follow it without ceasing, 
and never to fail? " Lord^ I believe; help thou mine 
unbelief.^' The disciples called upon Jesus to 
strengthen their faith. " Wlien I would do good," 
says the apostle Paul, ^' evil is present ivith me." It 
is hard to work out one's salvation. 

A drowning man calls for aid. A rope is thrown 
to him, and he says : " Sti'engthen my belief that 
this rope will save me. I believe that the rope will 
save me ; but help my unbelief." What is the mean- 
ing of this ? If a man will not seize upon his only 
means of safety, it is plain that he does not under- 
stand his condition. 

How can a Christian who professes to believe in 
the divinity of Jesus and of his doctrine, whatever 
may be the meaning that he attaches thereto, say 
that he wishes to believe, and that he cannot believe ? 
God comes upon earth, and says, "Fire, torments, 
eternal darkness await you ; and here is your salva- 



MT RELIGION-. 161 

tion — fulfil my doctrine." It is not possible that 
a believing Christian should not believe and profit by 
the salvation thus offered to him ; it is not possible 
that he should say, " Help my unbelief." If a man 
says this, he not only does not believe in his perdi- 
tion, but he must be certain that he shall not perish. 

A number of children have fallen from a boat into 
the water. For an instant their clothes and their 
feeble struggles keep them on the surface of the 
stream, and they do not realize their danger. Those 
in the boat throw out a rope. They warn the chil- 
dren against their peril, and urge them to grasp the 
rope (the parables of the woman and the piece of 
silver, the shepherd and the lost sheep, the marriage 
feast, the prodigal son, all have this meaning), 
but the children do not believe ; they refuse to 
believe, not in the rope, but that they are in danger 
of drowning. Children as frivolous as themselves 
have assured them that they can continue to float 
gaily along even when the boat is far away. The 
children do not believe ; but when their clothes are 
saturated, the strength of their little arms exhausted, 
they will sink and perish. This they do not believe, 
and so they do not believe in the rope of safety. 

Just as the children in the water will not grasp 
the rope that is thrown to them, persuaded that they 
will not perish, so men who believe in the resurrec- 
tion of the soul, convinced that there is no danger, 
do not practise the commandments of Jesus. They 
do not believe in what is certain, simply because 
they do believe in what is uncertain. It is for this 



162 M7 RELIGION. 

cause they cry, " Lord, strengthen our faith, lest we 
perish." But this is impossible. To have the faith 
that will save them from perishing, they must cease 
to do what will lead them to perdition, and they 
must begin to do something for their own safety ; 
they must grasp the rope of safety. Now this is 
exactl}' what they do not wish to do ; they wish to 
persuade themselves that they will not perish, al- 
though they see their comrades perishing one after 
another before their very eyes. They wish to per- 
suade themselves of the truth of what does not 
exist, and so they ask to be strengthened in faith. 
It is plain that they have not enough faith, and they 
wish for more. 

When I understood the doctrine of Jesus, I saw 
that what these men call faith is the faith denounced 
by the apostle James : ^ — 

" What doth it profit, my brethren, if a man be- 
lieve he hath faith, but hath not works'^ can that faith 
save him? If a brother or sister be naked and in 
lack of daily food, and one of you say unto them. 
Go in peace, be ye warmed and filled; and yet ye 
give tJiem not the things needful to the body ; what 
doth it profit? Even so faith, if it have not works, 
is dead in itself. But some one will say. Thou hast 
faith, and I have loorks: Shew me thy faith which is 
without works, and I, by my works, will show thee my 

1 The epistle of James was for a long time rejected by the 
Church, and when accepted, was subjected to various altera- 
tions: certain words ire omitted, others are transposed, or 
translated in an arbitrary way. I have restored the defective 
passages after the text authorized by Tischendorf. 



MY RELIGION. 163 

faith. Thou believest there is one God; thou doest 
icell: the demons also believe, and tremble. But 
wilt thou knoic, vain man, that faith icitliout icorks 
is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by 
tcorks lohen he offered up Isaac his son upon the 
altar? Thou seest that faith icrought icith his icorks, 
and by luorks icas faith made pej feet. . . . Ye see that 
by tcorks a man is justified, and not only by faith. 
. . . For as the body icithout the spirit is dead, so 
faith is dead icithout works.'' (James ii. 14-26.) 

James says that the indication of faith is the acts 
that it inspires, and consequently that a faith which 
does not result in acts is of words mereh^, with which 
one cannot feed the hungrj', or justify belief, or 
obtain salvation. A faith without acts is not faith. 
It is only a disposition to believe in something, a 
vain affirmation of belief in something in which one 
does not really believe. Faith, as the apostle James 
defines it, is the motive power of actions, and 
actions are a manifestation of faith. ^- 

The Jews said to Jesus: " What signs shewest 
thou then, that tee may see, and believe thee? ichat 
dost thou icork?" (John vi. 30. See also Mark 
XV. 32; Matt, xxvii. 42). Jesus told them that 
their desire was vain, and that they could not be 
made to believe what they did not believe. " i/" / 
tell you,'' he said, " ?/e will not believe" (Luke 
xxii. 67) ; "7 told you, and ye believed not. . . . 
But ye believe not because ye are not of my sheep " 
(Johnx. 25, 26). 

The Jews asked exactly what is asked by Chris- 



164 MY RELIGION. 

tians brought up in the Church ; they asked for 
some outward sign which should make them believe 
in the doctrine of Jesus. Jesus explained that this 
was impossible, and he told them why it was impos- 
sible. He told them that they could not believe 
because they were not of his sheep ; that is, -they did 
not follow the road he had pointed out. He ex- 
plained why some believed, and why others did not 
believe, and he told them what faith really was. 
He said: '•'' Hoiu can ye believe ivMch receive your 
doctrine (So|a^) one of another^ and seek not the doc- 
trine that cometh only from God?" (John v. 44). 

To believe, Jesus says, we must seek for the doc- 
trine that comes from God alone. 

" He that speaJceth of himself seeketh (to extend) 
his oicn doctrine, So^av ttjv tStav, but he that seeketh 
(to extend) the doctrine of him that sent him, tJie 
same is true, and no untruth is in him.'' (John vii. 
18.) 

The doctrine of life, 8o^a, is the foundation of 
faith, and actions result spontaneously from faith. 
But there are two docti'ines of life : Jesus denies 
the one and affirms the other. One of these doc- 
trines, a source of all error, consists of the idea that 
the personal life is one of the essential and real 
attributes of man. This doctrine has been followed, 
and is still followed, by the majority of men ; it is 
the source of divergent beliefs and acts. The other 

1 Here, as in other passages, S6^a has been incorrectly trans- 
lated "honor "; So|a, from the verb So/cew, means " manner of 
seeing, judgment, doctrine." 



MY RELIGION. 165 

doctrine, taught b}' Jesus and by all the prophets, 
affirms that our personal life has no meaning save 
through fulfilment of the will of God. If a man 
confess a doctrine that emphasizes his own personal 
life, he will consider that his personal welfare is the 
most important thing in the world, and he will con- 
sider riches, honors, glor}*, pleasure, as true sources 
of happiness ; he will have a faith in accordance 
with his inclination, and his acts will always be in 
harmony with his faith. If a man confess a differ- 
ent doctrine, if he find the essence of life in fulfil- 
ment of the will of God in accordance with the 
example of Abraham and the teaching and example 
of Jesus, his faith will accord with his principles, 
and his acts will be conformable to his faith. And 
so those who believe that true happiness is to be 
found in the personal life can never have faith in 
the doctrine of Jesus. All their efforts to fix their 
faith upon it will be always vain. To believe in the 
doctrine of Jesus, they must look at life in an en- 
tirely different way. Their actions will coincide 
always with their faith and not with their intentions 
and their words. 

In men who demand of Jesus that he shall work 
miracles we may recognize a desire to believe in his 
doctrine ; but this desire never can be realized in life, 
however arduous the efforts to obtain it. In vain 
they pray, and observe the sacraments, and give in 
charity, and build churches, and convert others ; they 
cannot follow the example of Jesus because their 
acts are inspired by a faith based upon an entirely 



166 MT RELIGION. 

different doctrine from that which they confess. 
They could not sacrifice an only son as Abraham 
was ready to do, although Abraham had no hesita- 
tion whatever as to what he should do, just as Jesus 
and his disciples were moved to give their lives for 
others, because such action alone constituted for 
them the true meaning of life. This incapacity to 
understand the substance of faith explains the strauge 
moral state of men, who, acknowledging that they 
ought to live in accordance with the doctrine of Jesus, 
endeavor to live in opposition to this doctrine, con- 
formably to their beUef that the personal life is a 
sovereign good. 

The basis of faith is the meaning that we derive 
from life, the meaning that determines whether we 
look upon life as important and good, or trivial and 
coiTupt."^ Faith is the appreciation of good and of 
evil. , Men with a faith based upon their own doc- 
trines do not succeed at all in harmonizing this faith 
with the faith inspu*ed by the doctrine of Jesus ; and 
so it was with the early disciples. This misappre- 
hension is frequently referred to in the Gospels in 
clear and decisive terms. Several times the disciples 
asked Jesus to strengthen their faith in his words 
(Matt. XX. 20-28 ; Mark x. 35-48) . After the mes- 
sage, so terrible to every man who beUeves in the 
personal life and who seeks his happiness in the 
riches of this world, after the words, '■'How hardly 
shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of 
God," and after words still more terrible for men 
who believe only in the personal life, " Sell whatso' 



MY religion: 167 

ever tJiou hast and give to the poor ; " after these 
warning words Peter asked, '-'- Behold, we have for- 
saken all and followed thee; ivhat shall ice have there- 
fore?" Then James and John and, according to the 
Gospel of Matthew, their mother, asked him that they 
might be allowed to sit with him in glory. They 
asked Jesus to strengthen their faith with a promise 
of future recompense. To Peter's question Jesus 
replied with a parable (Matt. xx. 1-16); to James 
he replied that they did not know what they asked ; 
that the}' asked what was impossible ; that they did 
not understand the doctrine, which meant a renun- 
ciation of the personal life, while they demanded 
personal glory, a personal recompense ; that they 
should drink the cup he drank of (that is, live as he 
lived) , but to sit upon his right hand and upon his 
left was not his to give. And Jesus added that the 
great of this world had their profit and enjoyment 
of glory and personal power only in the worldly life ; 
but that his disciples ought to know that the true 
meaning of human life is not in personal happi- 
ness, but in ministering to others ; " the son of man 
came not to he ministered unto, hut to minister, and 
to give his life a ransom for many.'' In reply to the 
unreasonable demands which revealed their slowness 
to understand his doctrine, Jesus did not command 
his disciples to have faith in his doctrine, that is, to 
modify the ideas inspired by their own doctrine (he 
knew that to be impossible), but he explained to 
them the meaning of that life which is the basis of 
true faith, that is, taught them how to discern good 
from evil, the important from the secondary. 



168 317 RELIGION. 

To Peter's question, " What shall we received" 
Jesus replies with the parable of the laborers in the 
vineyard (Matt. xx. 1-16) , beginning with the words 
"• For the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that 
is a householder^"" and by this means Jesus explains 
to Peter that failure to understand the doctrine is 
the cause of lack of faith ; and that remuneration in 
proportion to the amount of work done is important 
only from the point of view of the personal life. 

This faith is based upon the presumption of certain 
imaginary rights ; but a man has a right to nothing ; 
he is under obligations for the good he has received, 
aud so he can exact nothing. Even if he were to 
give up bis whole life to the service of others, he 
could not pay the debt he has incurred, and so he 
cannot complain of injustice. If a man sets a value 
upon his rights to life, if he keeps a reckoning with 
the Overruling Power from whom he has received 
life, he proves simply that he does not understand 
the meaning of life. Men who have received a 
benefit act far otherwise. The laborers employed in 
the vineyard were found by the householder idle and 
unhappy ; the}' did not possess life in the proper 
meaning of the term. And then the householder 
gave them the supreme welfare of life , — work . They 
accepted the benefits offered, and were discontented 
because their remuneration was not graduated accord- 
ing to their imaginary deserts. They did the work, 
believing in their false doctrine of life and work as a 
right, and consequently with an idea of the remunera- 
tion to which they were entitled. They did not un- 



MY RELIGION. 169 

derstand that work is the supreme good, and that 
the}^ should be thankful for the opportunity to work, 
instead of exacting payment. And so all men who 
look upon life as these laborers looked upon it, never 
can possess true faith. This parable of the laborers, 
related by Jesus in response to the request by his 
disciples that he strengthen their faith, shows more 
clearly than ever the basis of the faith that Jesus 
taught. 

When Jesus told his disciples that they must for- 
give a brother who trespassed against them not onlj^ 
once, but seventy times seven times, the disciples 
were overwhelmed at the difficulty of observing this 
injunction, and said, " Increase our faith,'" just as a 
little while before they had asked, " TF7iaf shall tve 
receive ? " Now they uttered the language of would- 
be Christians: "We wish to believe, but cannot; 
strengthen our faith that we may be saved ; make us 
believe " (as the Jews said to Jesus when they de- 
manded miracles) ; " either by miracles or promises 
of recompense, make us to have faith in our sal- 
vation." 

The disciples said what we all say : ' ' How pleasant 
it would be if we could live our selfish life, and at 
the same time believe that it is far better to practise 
the doctrine of God by living for others." This dis- 
position of mind is common to us all; it is contrary 
to the meaning of the doctrine of Jesus, and yet we 
are astonished at our lack of faith. Jesus disposed 
of this misapprehension by means of a parable illus- 
trating true faith. Faith cannot come of confidence 



170 3IT RELIGION. 

in Ms words ; faith can come only of a consciousness 
of our condition ; faith is based only upon the dic- 
tates of reason as to what is best to do in a given 
situation. He showed that this faith cannot be 
awakened in others by promises of recompense or 
threats of punishment, which can only arouse a feeble 
confidence that will fail at the first trial ; but that the 
faith which removes mountains, the faith that noth- 
ing can shatter, is inspired by the consciousness of 
our inevitable loss if we do not profit by the salvation 
that is offered. 

To have faith, we must not count on any promise 
of recompense ; we must understand that the only 
way of escape from a ruined life is a life conform- 
able to the will of the Master. He who understands 
this will not ask to be strengthened in his faith, but 
will work out his salvation without the need of any 
exhortation. The householder, when he comes 
from the fields with his workman, does not ask the 
latter to sit down at once to dinner, but directs him 
to attend first to other duties and to wait upon him, 
the master, and then to take his place at the table 
and dine. This the workman does without any 
sense of being wronged ; he does not boast of his 
labor nor does he demand recognition or recom- 
pense, for he knows that labor is the inevitable con- 
dition of his existence and the true welfare of his 
life. So Jesus says that when we have done all 
that we are commanded to do, we have onl}' fulfilled 
our dutj^ He who understands his relations to his 
master will understand that he has life only as he 



3IY RELIGION. Ill 

obeys the master's will ; he will know in what his 
welfare consists, and he will have a faith that does 
not demand the impossible. This is the faith 
taught by Jesus, which has for its foundation a 
thorough perception of the true meaning of life. 
The source of faith is light : — 

" That ivas the true light ivhich lighteth every man 
that Cometh into the world. He ivas in the tuorld, 
and the icorld was made by him^ and the icorld kneio 
him not. He came unto his oivn, and his own received 
him not. But as many as received him., to them gave 
he the right to become the children of God, even to 
them that believe on his name.'' (John i. 9-12.) 

^^ And this is the condemnation, that light is come 
into the ivorld, and men loved darkness rather than 
light, because their deeds tvere evil. For every one 
that doeth ill hateth the light, and cometh not to the 
light, lest his ivorks shoidd be reproved. But he that 
doeth the truth cometh to the light, that his loorks may 
be made manifest, because they have been tor ought in 
God.'' (John iii. 19-21.) 

He who understands the doctrine of Jesus will 
not ask to be strengthened in his faith. The doc- 
trine of Jesus teaches that faith is inspired by the 
light of truth. Jesus never asked men to have faith 
in his person ; he called upon them to have faith in 
truth. To the Jews he said : — 

" Ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the 
truth irhich I have heard of God." (John viii. 40.) 

" Which of you convicteth me of sin? If I say 
truth, why do ye not believe meV (John viii. 46.) 



172 MT religion: 

" To this end have I been born, and to this end am 
I come into the luorld, that I should bear icitness unto 
the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my 
voice." (John xviii. 37.) 

To his disciples he said : — 

*'/ am the way, and the truth, and the life.'' 
(Johnxiv. 6.) 

*' The Father . . . shall give you another Comforter, 
that he may be with you forever, even the Spirit of 
truth: ivhom the ivorld cannot receive; for it behold- 
eth him not, neither knoiueth him: ye know him; for 
he abideth ivith you, and shall be in you." (John 
xiv. 16, 17.) 

Jesus' doctrine, then, is truth, and he himself is 
truth. The doctiine of Jesus is the doctrine of 
truth. Faith in Jesns is not belief in a system 
based upon his personality, but a consciousness of 
truth. No one can be persuaded to believe in the 
doctrine of Jesus, nor can any one be stimulated by 
any promised reward to practise it. He who under- 
stands the doctrine of Jesus will have faith in him, 
because this doctiine is true. He who knows the 
truth indispensable to his happiness must believe in 
it, just as a man who knows that he is drowning 
grasps the rope of safet3^ Thus, the question. 
What must I do to believe ? is an indication that he 
who asks it does not understand the doctrine of 
Jesus. 



CHAPTER X. 

WE say, It is difficult to live according to the 
doctrine of Jesus ! And wh}- should it not 
be difficult, when by our organization of life we 
carefully hide from ourselves our true situation ; 
when we endeavor to persuade ourselves that our 
situation is not at all what it is, but that it is some- 
thing else? We call this faith, and regarding it as 
sacred, we endeavor bj' all possible means, by 
thi'eats, by flattery, by falsehood, by stimulating 
the emotions, to atti'act men to its support. In this 
mad determination to beUeve what is contrary to 
sense and reason, we reach such a degree of aber- 
ration that we are reach' to take as an indication of 
truth the very absurdity of the object in whose 
behalf we solicit the confidence of men. Are there 
not Christians who are ready to declare with enthu- 
siasm " Credo quia absurdum," supposing that the 
absurd is the best medium for teaching men the 
truth? Not long ago a man of intelligence and 
great learning said to me that the Christian doctrine 
had no importance as a moral rule of life. Moral- 
ity, he said, must be sought in the teachings of the 
Stoics and the Brahmins, and in the Talmud. The 
essence of the Christian doctrine is not in morality, 



174 3IY RELIGION. 

he said, but in the theosophieal doctrine propounded 
in its dogmas. According to this I ought to prize 
in the Christian doctrine not what it contains of 
eternal good to humanitj', not its teachings indis- 
pensable to a reasonable life ; I ought to regard as 
the most important element of Christianity that 
portion of it which it is impossible to understand, 
and therefore useless, — and this in the name of 
thousands of men who have perished for their faith. 

We have a false conception of hfe, a conception 
based upon wrong doing and inspired by selfish 
passions, and we consider our faith in this false con- 
ception (which we have in some way attached to the 
doctrine of Jesus) , as the most important and neces- 
sary thing with which we are concerned. If men 
had not for centuries maintained faith in what is 
untrue, this false conception of life, as well as the 
truth of the doctrine of Jesus, would long ago have 
been revealed. 

It is a terrible thing to say, but it seems to me 
that if the doctrine of Jesus, and that of the Church 
which has been foisted upon it, had never existed, 
those who to-day call themselves Christians would 
be much nearer than they are to the ti'uth of the 
doctrine of Jesus ; that is, to the reasonable doc- 
trine which teaches the ti'ue meaning of life. The 
moral doctrines of all the prophets of the world 
would not then be closed to them. They would 
have then- little ideas of truth, and would regard 
them with confidence. Now, all truth is revealed, 
and this truth has so horrified those whose manner 



MY RELIGION. 175 

of life it condemned, that they have disguised it in 
falsehood, and men have lost confidence in the truth. 

In our European society, the words of Jesus, 
' ' To this end I am come into the ivorld, that I shall 
bear idtness unto the truth. Every one that is of the 
truth heareth my voice.,'' — have been for a long time 
supplanted b}^ Pilate's question, " Wliat is truth?'' 
This question, quoted as a bitter and profound 
irony against a Roman, we have taken as of serious 
purport, and have made of it an article of faith. 

"With us, all men live not only without ti'uth, not 
only without the least desire to know truth, but with 
the firm conviction that, among all useless occupa- 
tions, the most useless is the endeavor to find the truth 
that governs human life. The rule of life, the doc- 
trine that all peoples, excepting our European socie- 
ties, have always considered as the most important 
thing, the rule of which Jesus spoke as the one thing 
needful, is an object of universal disdain. An insti- 
tution called the Church, in which no one, not even 
if he belong to it, really believes, has for a long 
time usurped the place of this rule. 

The only source of light for those who think and 
suffer is hidden. For a solution of the questions, 
What am I ? what ought I to do ? I am not allowed 
to depend upon the doctrine of him who came to 
save ; I am told to obey the authorities, and believe 
in the Church. But why is life so full of evil? 
Why so much wrong-doing? May I not abstain 
from taking part therein ? Is it impossible to lighten 
this heavy load that weighs me down? The reply 



176 MY religion: 

is that this is impossible, that the desu'e to live well 
and to help others to live well is only a temptation 
of pride ; that one thing is possible, — to save one's 
soul for the future life. He who is not willing to 
take part in this miserable life may keep aloof from 
it ; this way is open to all ; but, says the doctrine of 
the Church, he who chooses this way can take no 
part in the life of the world ; he ceases to live. Our 
masters tell us that there are only two ways, — to 
believe in and obey the powers that be, to partici- 
pate in the organized evil about us, or to forsake the 
world and take refuge in convent or monastery ; to 
take part in the offices of the Church, doing nothing 
for men, and declaring the doctrine of Jesus impossi- 
ble to practise, accepting the iniquity of life sanc- 
tioned by the Church, or to renounce life for what is 
equivalent to slow suicide. 

However surprising the belief that the doctrine of 
Jesus is excellent, but impossible of practice, there 
is a still more surprising tradition that he who wishes 
to practise this doctrine, not in word, but in deed, 
must retire from the world. This erroneous belief 
that it is better for a man to retire from the world 
than to expose himself to temptations, existed 
amongst the Hebrews of old, but is entirely foreign, 
not only to the spirit of Christianity, but to that of 
the Jewish religion. The charming and significant 
story of the prophet Jonah, which Jesus so loved to 
quote, was written in regard to this very error. The 
prophet Jonah, wishing to remain upright and virtu- 
ous, retires from the perverse companionship of men. 



MY RELIGION. Ill 

But God shows him that as a prophet he ought to 
communicate to misguided men a knowledge of the 
truth, and so ought not to fly from men, but ought 
rather to live in communion with them. Jonah, dis- 
gusted with the depravity of the inhabitants of 
Nineveh, flies from the city ; but he cannot escape 
his vocation. He is brought back, and the will of 
God is accomplished ; the Ninevites receive the words 
of Jonah and are saved. Instead of rejoicing that 
he has been made the instrument of God's will, Jonah 
is angry, and condemns God for the mercy shown 
the Ninevites, arrogating to himself alone the exer- 
cise of reason and goodness. He goes out into the 
desert and makes him a shelter, whence he addresses 
his reproaches to God. Then a gourd comes up over 
Jonah and protects him from the sun, but the next 
day it withers. Jonah, smitten by the heat, re- 
proaches God anew for allowing the gourd to 
wither. Then God says to him : — 

" Thou hast had pity on the g our d, for the ivhich 
thou hast not labored, neither madest it groio ; ivhich 
came up in a night, and perished in a night: and 
should I not have pity on Nineveh, that great city ; 
wherein are more than six score thousand persons that 
cannot discern between their right hand and their left 
hand ? " 

Jesus knew this story, and often referred to it. 
In the Gospels we find it related how Jesus, after 
the interview with John, who had retired into the 
desert, was himself subjected to the same tempta- 
tion before beginning his mission. He was led by 



178 3fY RELIGION. 

the Spii'it into the wilderness, and there tempted 
hj the Devil (error), over which he triumphed 
and returned to Galilee. Thereafter he mingled 
with the most depraved men, and passed his life 
among pubUcans, Pharisees, and fishermen, teach- 
ing them the truth.^ 

Even according to the doctrine of the Church, 
Jesus, as God in man, has given us the example of 
his life. All of his hfe that is known to us was 
passed in the company of publicans, of the down- 
fallen, and of Pharisees. The principal command- 
ments of Jesus are that his followers shall love 
others and spread his doctrine. Both exact con- 
stant communion with the world. And j'et the 
deduction is made that the doctrine of Jesus per- 
mits retirement from the world. That is, to imitate 
Jesus we may do exactly contrary to what he taught 
and did himself. 

As the Church explains it, the doctrine of Jesus 
offers itself to men of the world and to dwellers in 

1 Jesus is led into the desert to be tempted of error. Error 
suggests to Jesus that he is not the Son of God if he cannot make 
stones into bread. Jesus replies that he lives, not by bread 
alone, but by the word of God. Then Error says that if he lives 
by the word or sj)irit of God, the flesh maybe destroyed, but the 
spirit will not perish. Jesus' reply is that life in the flesh is the 
will of God; to destroy the flesh is to act contrary to the will of 
God, to tempt God. Error then suggests that if this be true, he 
should, like the rest of the world, place himself at the service of 
the flesh, and the flesh will give him satisfaction. Jesus' reply 
is that he can serve God only because the true life is spiritual, 
and has been placed in the flesh by the will of God. Jesus then 
leaves the desert and returns to the world. (Matt. iv. 1-11; 
Luke iv. 1-13.) 



MT RELIGION. 179 

monasteries, not as a rule of life for bettering one's 
own condition and the condition of others, but as a 
doctrine which teaches the man of the world how to 
live an evil life and at the same time gain for him- 
self another Hfe, and the monk how to render exist- 
ence still more difficult than it naturally is. But 
Jesus did not teach this. Jesus taught the truth, 
and if metaphysical truth is the truth, it will remain 
such in practice. If hfe in God is the only true 
life, and is in itself profitable, then it is so here in 
this world in spite of all that may happen. If in 
this world a life in accordance with the doctrine of 
Jesus is not profitable, his doctrine cannot be true. 

Jesus did not ask us to pass from better to worse, 
but, on the contrary, from worse to better. He 
had pity upon men, who to him were like sheep 
without a shepherd. He said that his disciples 
would be persecuted for his doctiine, and that they 
must bear the persecutions of the world with resolu- 
tion. But he did not say that those who followed 
his doctrine would suffer more than those who fol- 
lowed the world's doctrine ; on the contrary, he said 
that those who followed the world's docti'ine would 
be wi'etched, and that those who followed his doc- 
tidne would have joy and peace. Jesus did not 
teach salvation by faith in asceticism or voluntary 
tortiire, but he taught us a way of life which, while 
saving us from the emptiness of the personal life, 
would give us less of suffering and more of joy. 
Jesus told men that in practising his doctrine among 
unbelievers they would be, not more unhappy, but, 



180 MT RELIGION. 

on the contrary, much more happy, than those who 
did not practise it. There was, he said, one infalli- 
ble rule, and that was to have no care about the 
worldly life. When Peter said to Jesus, " We have 
forsaken all., and followed thee; what then shall ice 
have ? " Jesus replied : — 

" There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, 
or sisters, or mother, or father, or children, or lands, 
for my sake, and for the gospel's sake, but he shall 
receive a hundredfold more in this time, houses, and 
brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and 
lands, with persecutions ; and in the age to come eter- 
nal lifer (Mark x. 28-30.) 

Jesus declared, it is true, that those who follow 
his doctrine must expect to be persecuted by those 
who do not foUow it, but he did not say that his 
disciples will be the worse off for that reason ; on 
the contrary, he said that his disciples would have, 
here, in this world, more benefits than those who 
did not follow him. That Jesus said and thought 
this is beyond a doubt, as the clearness of his 
words on this subject, the meaniug of his entire 
doctrine, his life and the life of his disciples, 
plainly show. But was his teaching in this respect 
true? 

When we examine the question as to which of 
the two conditions would be the better, that of the 
disciples of Jesus or that of the disciples of the 
world, we are obliged to conclude that the condition 
of the disciples of Jesus ought to be the most 
desirable, since the disciples of Jesus, in doing 



MY RELIGIOIT. 181 

good to every one, would not arouse the hatred of 
men. The disciples of Jesus, doing evil to no one, 
would be persecuted only b}' the wicked. The dis- 
ciples of the world, on the contrary, are likely to be 
persecuted by every one, since the law of the disci- 
ples of the world is the law of each for himself, the 
law of struggle ; that is, of mutual persecution. 
Moreover, the disciples of Jesus would be prepared 
for suffering, while the disciples of the world use all 
possible means to avoid suffering ; the disciples of 
Jesus would feel that their sufferings were useful 
to the world ; but the disciples of the world do not 
know why they suffer. On absti'act grounds, then, 
the condition of the disciples of Jesus would be 
more advantageous than that of the disciples of the 
world. But is it so in reality? To answer this, 
let each one call to mind all the painful moments of 
his life, all the physical and moral sufferings that 
he has endured, and let him ask himself if he has 
suffered these calamities in behalf of the doctrine 
of the world or in behalf of the doctrine of Jesus. 
Every sincere man wiU find in recalling his past life 
that he has never once suffered for practising the 
doctrine of Jesus. He will find that the greater 
part of the misfortunes of his life have resulted 
from following the doctrines of the world. In my 
own life (an exceptionally happy one from a worldly 
point of view) I can reckon up as much suffering 
caused by following the doctrine of the world as 
many a martyr has endured for the doctrine of 
Jesus. All the most painful moments of my life, — 



182 MY RELIGION. 

the orgies and duels in which I took part as a 
student, the wars in which I have participated, the 
diseases that I have endured, and the abnormal and 
insupportable conditions under which I now live, — 
all these are only so much martyrdom exacted by 
fidelity to the doctrine of the world. But I speak 
of a life exceptionally happy from a worldly point 
of view. How many martyrs have suffered for the 
doctrine of the world torments that I should find 
diflSculty in enumerating ! 

We do not realize the di0S.culties and dangers 
entailed by the practice of the doctrine of the 
world, simply because we are persuaded that we 
could not do otherwise than follow that doctrine. 
We are persuaded that all the calamities that we 
inflict upon ourselves are the result of the inevitable 
conditions of life, and we cannot understand that 
the doctrine of Jesus teaches us how we may rid 
ourselves of these calamities and render our lives 
happy. To be able to reply to the question. Which 
of these two conditions is the happier? we must, 
at least for the time being, put aside our prejudices 
and take a careful survey of our surroundings. 

Go through our great cities and observe the 
emaciated, sickly, and distorted specimens of hu- 
manity to be found therein ; recall your own exist- 
ence and that of all the people with whose lives you 
are familiar ; recall the instances of violent deaths 
and suicides of which you have heard, — and then 
ask yourself for what cause all this suffering and 
death, this despair that leads to suicide, has been 



317 RELIGION. 183 

endured. You will find, perhaps to your surprise, 
that nine-tenths of all human suffering endured by 
men is useless, and ought not to exist, that, in fact, 
the majority of men are martjTs to the doctrine of 
the world. 

One rainy autumn day I rode on the tramway by 
the Sukhareff Tower in Moscow. For the distance 
of half a verst the vehicle forced its way through 
a compact crowd which quickly reformed its ranks. 
From morning till night these thousands of men, 
the greater portion of them starving and in rags, 
tramped angrily through the mud, venting their 
hati'ed in abusive epithets and acts of violence. 
The same sight may be seen in all the market- 
places of Moscow. At sunset these people go to 
the taverns and gaming-houses ; their nights are 
passed in filth and wretchedness. Think of the 
lives of these people, of what they abandon thi'ough 
choice for their present condition ; think of the 
heavy burden of labor without reward which weighs 
upon these men and women, and you will see that 
they are true martyrs. All these people have for- 
saken houses, lands, parents, wives, and children ; 
they have renounced all the comforts of life, and 
they have come to the cities to acquire that which 
according to the gospel of the world is indispensa- 
ble to every one. And all these tens of thousands 
of unhappy people sleep in hovels, and subsist upon 
strong drink and wretched food. But aside from 
this class, all, from factory workman, cab-driver, 
sewing girl, and lorette, to merchant and government 



184 3fT RELIGION. 

official, all endure the most painful and abnormal 
conditions without being able to acquire what, ac- 
cording to the doctrine of the world, is indispensa- 
ble to each. 

Seek among all these men, from beggar to mil- 
lionaire, one who is contented with his lot, and 3'ou 
will not find one such in a thousand. Each one 
spends his strength in pursuit of what is exacted by 
the doctrine of the world, and of what he is un- 
happy not to possess, and scarcely has he obtained 
one object of his desires when he strives for 
another, and still another, in that infinite labor of 
Sisyphus which destroys the lives of men. Eun 
over the scale of individual fortunes, ranging from 
a yearh' income of three hundred roubles to fifty 
thousand roubles, and you will rarelj' find a person 
who is not striving to gain four hundred roubles if 
he have three hundred, five hundred if he have 
four hundred, and so on to the top of the ladder. 
Among them all you will scarcely find one who, 
with five hundred roubles, is willing to adopt the 
mode of life of him who has only four hundred. 
When such an instance does occur, it is not inspired 
by a desire to make life more simple, but to amass 
money and make it more sure. Each strives con- 
tinually to make the heavy burden of existence still 
more heavy, by giving himself up body and soul to 
the practice of the doctrine of the world. To-day 
we must buy an overcoat and galoches, to-morrow, 
a watch and chain ; the next day we must install 
ourselves in an appartment with a sofa and a bronze 



31 Y religion: 185 

lamp ; then we must have carpets and velvet gowns ; 
then a house, horses and carriages, paintings and 
decorations, and then — then we fall ill of overwork 
and die. Another continues the same task, sacri- 
fices his life to this same Moloch, and then dies 
also, without realizing for what he has lived. 

But possibly this existence is in itself attractive ? 
Compare it with what men have always called hap- 
piness, and 3'ou will see that it is hideous. For 
what, according to the general estimate, are the 
principal conditions of earthly happiness ? One of 
the first conditions of happiness is that the link 
between man and nature shall not be severed, that 
is, that he shall be able to see the sky above him, 
and that he shall be able to enjoy the sunshine, the 
pure air, the fields with their verdure, their multitu- 
dinous life. Men have always regarded it as a 
great unhappiness to be deprived of all these 
things. But what is the condition of those men 
who live according to the doctrine of the world? 
The greater their success in practising the docti-ine 
of the world, the more they are deprived of these 
conditions of happiness. The greater their worldly 
success, the less they are able to enjoy the hght of 
the sun, the freshness of the fields and woods, and 
all the delights of country life. Many of them — 
including nearly all the women — arrive at old age 
without having seen the sun rise or the beauties of 
the early morning, without having seen a forest 
except from a seat in a carriage, without ever 
having planted a field or a garden, and without 



186 MY RELIGION. 

having the least idea as to the ways and habits of 
dumb animals. 

These people, suiTounded by artificial light in- 
stead of sunshine, look only upon fabrics of tapes- 
try and stone and wood fashioned by the hand of 
man ; the roar of machinerj^, the roll of vehicles, 
the thunder of cannon, the sound of musical instru- 
ments, are always in their ears ; they breathe an 
atmosphere heavy with distilled perfumes and 
tobacco smoke ; because of the weakness of their 
stomachs and their depraved tastes they eat rich 
and highly spiced food. When they move about 
from place to place, they travel in closed carriages. 
"When they go into the country, they have the same 
fabrics beneath their feet ; the same draperies shut 
out the sunshine ; and the same arraj' of servants 
cut off all communication with the men, the earth, 
the vegetation, and the animals about them. 
Wherever they go, they are like so many captives 
shut out from the conditions of happiness. As 
prisoners sometimes console themselves with a 
blade of grass that forces its way through the 
pavement of their prison yard, or make pets of a 
spider or a mouse, so these people sometimes amuse 
themselves with sickly plants, a parrot, a poodle, or 
a monkey, to whose needs however they do not 
themselves administer. 

Another inevitable condition of happiness is 
work : first, the intellectual labor that one is free to 
choose and loves ; secondly, the exercise of physical 
power that brings a good appetite and tranquil and 



MY religion: 187 

profound sleep. Here, again, the greater the imag- 
ined prosperity that falls to the lot of men accord- 
ing to the doctrine of the world, the more such 
men are deprived of this condition of happiness. 
All the prosperous people of the world, the men of 
dignity and wealth, are as completely deprived of 
the advantages of work as if they were shut up in 
solitary confinement. Thej^ struggle unsuccessfully 
with the diseases caused by the need of physical 
exercise, and with the ennui which pursues them — 
unsuccessfull}', because labor is a pleasure only 
when it is necessary, and they have need of noth- 
ing ; or they undertake work that is odious to 
them, like the bankers, solicitors, administrators, 
and government officials, and their wives, who plan 
receptions and routs and devise toilettes for them- 
selves and their children. (I say odious, because I 
never yet met any person of this class who was 
contented with his work or took as much satis- 
faction in it as the porter feels in shovelling away 
the snow from before their doorsteps.) All these 
favorites of fortune are either deprived of work or 
are obliged to work at what they do not like, after 
the manner of criminals condemned to hard labor. 

The third undoubted condition of happiness is 
the family. But the more men are enslaved by 
worldly success, the more certainly are they cut off 
from domestic pleasures. The majority of them 
are libertines, who deliberately renounce the joys of 
family life and retain only its cares. If they are 
not libertines, their children, instead of being a 



188 MT religion: 

source of pleasure, are a burden, and all possible 
means are employed to render marriage unfruitful. 
If they have children, they make no effort to culti- 
vate the pleasures of companionship with them. 
They leave their children almost continualh' to the 
care of strangers, confiding them first to the in- 
struction of persons who are usually foreigners, 
and then sending them to public educational institu- 
tions, so that of family life they have only the 
sorrows, and the children from infancy are as 
unhappy as their parents and wish their parents 
dead that they ma}^ become the heirs. ^ These peo- 
ple are not confined in prisons, bat the consequences 
of theu' way of living with regard to the family are 
more melancholy than the deprivation from the 
domestic relations inflicted upon those who are kept 
in confinement under sentence of the law. 

The fourth condition of happiness is sympathetic 
and unrestricted intercourse with all classes of 
men. And the higher a man is placed in the social 

1 The justification of this existence made hy parents is very 
curious. "I need nothing for myself," the father says; "this 
way of living is very distasteful to me ; but, because of affection 
for my children, I endure its burdens." In plain terms his 
argument would be: "I know by experience that my way of 
living is a source of unhappiness, consequently I am training 
my children to the same unhappy method of existence. For 
love of them, I bring them into a city permeated -^ith physical 
and moral miasma; I give them into the care of strangers, who 
regard the education of the young as a lucrative enterprise; I 
surround my children with physical, moral, and intellectual cor- 
ruption." And this reasoning must serve as a justification of 
the absurd existence led by the parents themselves. 



MY RELIGION. 189 

scale, the more certainly is he deprived of this 
essential condition of happiness. The higher he 
goes, the narrower becomes his circle of associates ; 
the lower sinks the moral and intellectual level of 
those to whose companionship he is restrained. 

The peasant and his wife are free to enter into 
friendly relations with every one, and if a million 
men will have nothing to do with them, there re- 
main eighty millions of people with whom they may 
fraternize, from Archangel to Astrakhan, without 
waiting for a ceremonious visit or an introduction. 
A clerk and his wife will find hundreds of people 
who are their equals ; but the clerks of a higher 
rank will not admit them to a footing of social 
equality, and they, in their turn, are excluded by 
others. The wealthy man of the world reckons by 
dozens the families with whom he is willing to 
maintain social ties — all the rest of the world are 
strangers. For the cabinet minister and the mil- 
lionaire there are only a dozen people as rich and 
as important as themselves. For kings and em- 
perors, the circle is still more narrow. Is not the 
whole system like a great prison where each inmate 
is restricted to association with a few fellow-con- 
victs ? 

Finally, the fifth condition of happiness is bodily 
health. And once more we find that as we ascend 
the social scale this condition of happiness is less 
and less within the reach of the followers of 
the doctrine of the world. Compare a famil}^ of 
medium social status with a family of peasants. 



190 MT RELIGI02T. 

The latter toil unremittingly and are robust of 
body ; the former is made up of men and women 
more or less subject to disease. Recall to mind the 
rich men and women whom you have known ; are 
not most of them invalids ? A person of that class 
whose physical disabilities do not oblige him to take 
a periodical course of hygienic and medical treat- 
ment is as rare as is an invalid among the laboring 
classes. All these favorites of fortune are the 
victims and practitioners of sexual vices that have 
become a second nature, and they are toothless, 
gray, and bald at an age when a workingman is in 
the prime of manhood. Nearly all are afflicted 
with nervous or other diseases arising from excesses 
in eating, drunkenness, luxury, and perpetual medi- 
cation. Those who do not die young, pass half of 
their lives under the influence of morphine or other 
drugs, as melancholy wrecks of humanity incapable 
of self-attention, leading a parasitic existence like 
that of a certain species of ants which are nourished 
by their slaves. Here is the death list. One has 
blown out his brains, another has rotted away from 
the effects of syphilitic poison ; this old man suc- 
cumbed to sexual excesses, this young man to a 
wild outburst of sensuality ; one died of drunken- 
ness, another of gluttony, another from the abuse of 
morphine, another from an induced abortion. One 
after another they j^erished, victims of the doctrine 
of the world. And a multitude presses on behind 
them, like an army of martyrs, to undergo the 
same sufferings, the same perdition. 



31 T RELIGIOX. 191 

To f oUo-w the doctrine of Jesus is difficult ! 
Jesus said that they who would forsake houses, aud 
lands, and brethren, and follow his doctrine should 
receive a hundred-fold in houses, and lands, and 
brethren, and besides all this, eternal life. And 
no one is willing even to make the experiment. 
The doctrine of the world commands its followers 
to leave houses, and lands, and brethren ; to forsake 
the country for the filth of the city, there to toil as 
a bath-keeper soaping the backs of others ; as an 
apprentice in a little underground shop passing life 
in counting kopecks ; as a prosecuting attorney to 
serve in bringing unhappy wretches under condem- 
nation of the law ; as a cabinet minister, perpetu- 
ally signing documents of no importance ; as the 
head of an army, killing men. — " Forsake all and 
live this hideous life ending in a cruel death, and 
you shall receive nothing in this world or the other," 
is the command, and every one listens and obeys. 
Jesus tells us to take up the cross and follow him, 
to bear submissivel}* the lot apportioned out to us. 
Ko one hears his words or follows his command. 
But let a man in a uniform decked out with gold 
lace, a man whose speciality is to kill his fellows, 
say, "Take, not your cross, but your knapsack 
and carbine, and march to suffering and certain 
death," — and a mighty host is ready to receive his 
orders. Leaving parents, wives, and children, clad 
in grotesque costumes, subject to the will of the 
first comer of a higher rank, famished, benumbed, 
and exhausted by forced marches, they go, like a 



192 MT RELIGION. 

herd of cattle to the slaughter-house, not knowing 
where, — and yet these are not cattle, they are men. 

With despair in their hearts they move on, to die 
of hunger, or cold, or disease, or, if they survive, 
to be brought within range of a storm of bullets 
and commanded to kill. They kill and are killed, 
none of them knows why or to what end. An 
ambitious stripling has only to brandish his sword 
and shout a few magniloquent words to induce 
them to rush to certain death. And yet no one 
finds this to be difficult. Neither the victims, nor 
those whom they have forsaken, find anything diffi- 
cult in such sacrifices, in which parents encourage 
their children to take part. It seems to them not 
only that such things should be, but that they could 
not be otherwise, and that they are altogether 
admirable and moral. 

If the practice of the doctrine of the world were 
easy, agreeable, and without danger, we might per- 
haps believe that the practice of the doctrine of 
Jesus is difficult, frightful, and cruel. But the 
doctrine of the world is much more difficult, more 
dangerous, and more cruel, than is the doctrine of 
Jesus. Formerly, we are told, there were martjTS 
for the cause of Jesus ; but they were exceptional. 
We cannot count up more than about three hundred 
and eighty thousand of them, voluntary and invol- 
untary, in the whole course of eighteen hundred 
years ; but who shall count the martyrs to the doc- 
trine of the world? For each Christian martyr 
there have been a thousand martjTS to the doctrine 



31 Y RELIGION^. 193 

of the world, and the sufferings of each one of 
them have been a hundred times more cruel than 
those endured by the others. The number of the 
victims of wars in our century alone amounts to 
thirty millions of men. These are the martyrs to 
the doctrine of the world, who would have escaped 
suffering and death even if they had refused to fol- 
low the doctrine of the world, to say nothing of 
following the doctrine of Jesus. 

If a man will cease to have faith in the doctrine 
of the world and not think it indispensable to wear 
varnished boots and a gold chain, to maintain a 
useless salon, or to do the various other foolish 
tilings the doctrine of the world demands, he will 
never know the effects of brutalizing occupations, 
of unlimited suffering, of the anxieties of a per- 
petual struggle \ he will remain in communion with 
nature ; he will be deprived neither of the work he 
loves, or of his family, or of his health, and he 
will not perish by a cruel and brutish death. 

The doctrine of Jesus does not exact martyrdom 
similar to that of the doctrine of the world ; it 
teaches us rather how to put an end to the suffer- 
ings that men endure in the name of the false 
doctrine of the world. The doctrine of Jesus has 
a profound metaphysical meaning ; it has a meaning 
as an expression of the aspirations of human it}' ; 
but it has also for each individual a very simple, 
very clear, and very practical meaning with regard 
to the conduct of his own life. In fact, we might 
say that Jesus taught men not to do foolish things. 



194 MY RELIGION. 

The meaning of the doctrine of Jesus is simple 
and accessible to all. 

Jesus said that we were not to be angry, and not 
to consider ourselves as better than others ; if we 
were angry and offended others, so much the worse 
for us. Again, he said that we were to avoid liber- 
tinism, and to that end choose one woman, to whom 
we should remain faithful. Once more, he said 
that we were not to bind ourselves by promises or 
oaths to the service of those who may constrain us 
to commit acts of folly and wickedness. Then he 
said that we were not to return evil for evil, lest the 
evil rebound upon ourselves with redoubled force. 
And, finally, he saj's that we are not to consider 
men as foreigners because they dwell in another 
country and speak a language different from our 
own. And the conclusion is, that if we avoid doing 
any of these foolish things, we shall be happy. 

This is all very well (we say) , but the world is so 
organized that, if we place ourselves in opposition 
to it, our condition will be much more calamitous 
than if we live in accordance with its doctrine. If 
a man refuses to perform military service, he will 
be shut up in a fortress, and possibly will be shot. 
If a man will not do what is necessary for the sup- 
port of himself and his family, he and his family 
will starve. Thus argue the people who feel them- 
selves obliged to defend the existing social organi- 
zation ; but they do not believe in the truth of their 
own words. They only say this because they can- 
not deny the truth of the doctrine of Jesus which 



MY RELIGION. 195 

they profess, and because they must justify them- 
selves in some way for their failure to practise it. 
They not only do not believe in what they say ; they 
have never given any serious consideration to the 
subject. They have faith in the doctrine of the 
world, and they only make use of the plea they 
have learned from the Church, — that much suffer- 
ing is inevitable for those who would practise the 
doctrine of Jesus ; and so they have never tried to 
practise the doctrine of Jesus at all. 

We see enough of the frightful suffering endured 
b}' men in following the doctrine of the world, but 
in these times we hear nothing of suffering in behalf 
of the doctrine of Jesus. Thirty millions of men 
have perished in wars, fought in behalf of the doc- 
trine of the world ; thousands of millions of beings 
have perished, crushed by a social system organized 
on the principle of the doctrine of the world ; but 
where, in our day, shall we find a million, a thousand, 
a dozen, or a single one, who has died a cruel death, 
or has even suffered from hunger and cold, in behalf 
of the doctrine of Jesus ? This fear of suffering is 
only a puerile excuse that proves how little we really 
know of Jesus' doctrine. We not only do not follow 
it ; we do not even take it seriously. The Church 
has explained it in such a way that it seems to be, 
not the doctrine of a happy life, but a bugbear, a 
source of terror. 

Jesus calls men to drink of a well of living water, 
which is free to all. Men are parched with thirst, 
they have eaten of filth and drunk blood, but they 



196 MY RELIGION. 

have been told that they will perish if they drink of 
this water that is offered them by Jesus, and men 
believe in the warnings of superstition. They die 
in torment, with the water that they dare not touch 
within their reach. If they would only have faith in 
Jesus' words, and go to this well of living water and 
quench their thirst, they would realize how cunning 
has been the imposture practised upon them by the 
Church, and how needlessly their sufferings have 
been prolonged. If they would only accept the doc- 
trine of Jesus, frankly and simply, they would see 
at once the horrible error of which we are each and 
all the victims. 

One generation after another strives to find the 
security of its existence in violence, and by violence 
to protect its privileges. We believe that the hap- 
piness of our life is in power, and domination, and 
abundance of worldly goods. We are so habituated 
to this idea that we are alarmed at the sacrifices ex- 
acted by the doctrine of Jesus, which teaches that 
man's happiness does not depend upon fortune and 
power, and that the rich cannot enter into the king- 
dom of God. But this is a false idea of the doctrine 
of Jesus, which teaches us, not to do what is the 
worst, but to do what is the best for ourselves here 
in this present life. Inspired by his love for men, 
Jesus taught them not to depend upon a security 
based upon violence, and not to seek after riches, 
just as we teach the common people to abstain, for 
their own interest, from quarrels and intemperance. 
He said that if men hved without defending them- 



MY RELIGION. 197 

selves against violence, and without possessing 
riches, they would be more happ}' ; and he confirms 
his words by the example of his life. He said that 
a man who lives according to his doctrine must be 
ready at any moment to endure violence from others, 
and, possibly, to die of hunger and cold. But this 
warning, which seems to exact such great and un- 
bearable sacrifices, is simply a statement of the con- 
ditions under which men always have existed, and 
always will continue to exist. 

A disciple of Jesus should be prepared for every- 
thing, and especially for suffering and death. But 
is the disciple of the world in a more desirable situ- 
ation? We are so accustomed to believe in all we 
do for the so-called security of life (the organization 
of armies, the building of fortresses, the provisioning 
of troops), that our wardrobes, our systems of medi- 
cal treatment, our furniture, and our mone}', all seem 
like real and stable pledges of our existence. We 
forget the fate of him who resolved to build greater 
storehouses to provide an abundance for many years : 
he died in a night. Everything that we do to make 
our existence secure is like the act of the ostrich, 
when she hides her head in the sand, and does not 
see that her destruction is near. But we are even 
more foolish than the ostrich. To establish the 
doubtful security of an uncertain life in an uncertain 
future, we sacrifice a life of certainty in a present 
that we might really possess. 

The illusion is in the firm conviction that our ex- 
istence can be made secure by a struggle with others. 



198 MY RELIGION. 

We are so accustomed to this illusory so-called se- 
curity of our existence and our property, that we do 
not realize what we lose by striving after it. We 
lose everything, — we lose life itself. Our whole 
life is taken up with anxiety for personal security, 
with preparations for living, so that we really never 
live at all. 

If we take a general survey of our lives, we shall 
see that all our efforts in behalf of the so-called se- 
curity of existence are not made at all for the assur- 
ance of security, but simph^ to help us to forget that 
existence never has been, and never can be, secure. 
But it is not enough to say that we are the dupes of 
our own illusions, and that we forfeit the true life 
for an imaginary life ; our efforts for security often 
result in the destruction of what we most wish to 
preserve. The French took up arms in 1870 to make 
their national existence secure, and the attempt 
resulted in the destruction of hundreds of thousands 
of Frenchmen. All people who take up arms un- 
dergo the same experience. The rich man believes 
that his existence is secure because he possesses 
money, and his money attracts a thief who kills him. 
The invalid thinks to make his life secure by the use 
of medicines, and the medicines slowly poison him ; 
if thej" do not bring about his death, thej" at least 
deprive him of life, till he is like the impotent man 
who waited thirty-live years at the pool for an angel 
to come down and trouble the waters. The doctrine 
of Jesus, which teaches us that we cannot possibly 
make life secure, but that we must be ready to die 



MY RELIGION. 199 

at any moment, is unquestionably preferable to the 
doctrine of the world, which obliges us to struggle 
for the security of existence. It is preferable be- 
cause the impossibility of escaping death, and the 
impossibility of making life secure, is the same for 
the disciples of Jesus as it is for the disciples of the 
world ; but, according to the doctrine of Jesus, life 
itself is not absorbed in the idle attempt to make 
existence secure. To the follower of Jesus life is 
free, and can be devoted to the end for which it is 
worthy, — its own welfare and the welfare of others. 
The disciple of Jesus will be poor, but that is only 
saying that he will always enjoy the gifts that God 
has lavished upon men. He will not ruin his own 
existence. We make the word poverty a synonym 
for calamity, but it is in truth a source of happiness, 
and however much we may regard it as a calamity*, 
it remains a source of happiness still. To be poor 
means not to live in cities, but in the country, not 
to be shut up in close rooms, but to labor out of 
doors, in the woods and fields, to have the delights 
of sunshine, of the open heavens, of the. earth, of 
observing the habits of dumb animals ; not to rack 
our brains with inventing dishes to stimulate an ap- 
petite, and not to endure the pangs of indigestion. 
To be poor is to be hungry three times a day, to 
sleep without passing hours tossing upon the pillow 
a victim of insomnia, to have children, and have 
them always with us, to do nothing that we do not 
wish to do (this is essential) , and to have no fear 
for anything that may happen. The poor person 



200 MT RELIGION. 

will be ill and will suffer ; he will die like the rest of 
the world ; but his sufferings and his death will prob- 
ably be less painful than those of the rich ; and he 
will certainl}' live more happily. Poverty is one of 
the conditions of following the doctrine of Jesus, a 
condition indispensable to those who would enter 
into the kingdom of God and be happy. 

The objection to this is, that no one will care for 
us, and that we shall be left to die of hunger. To 
this objection we may reply in the words of Jesus, 
(words that have been interpreted to justify the 
idleness of the clergy) : — 

*' Get you no gold., nor silver^ nor brass in your 
purses; no ivalletfor your journey^ neither two coats, 
nor shoes, nor staff: for the laborer is icorthy of his 
food'' (Matt. X. 10). 

^'•And into ivhatsoever house ye shall enter, . . . z?i 
that same house remain, eating and drinJcing such 
things as they give : for the laborer is worthy of his 
hire" (Luke x. 5, 7). 

The laborer is worthy of (aiLo? eo-rt means, word 
for word, can and ought to have) his food. It is a 
very short sentence, but he who understands it as 
Jesus understood it, will no longer have any fear of 
dying of hunger. To understand the true meaning 
of these words we must get rid of that traditional 
idea which we have developed from the doctrine of 
the redemption that man's felicity consists in idle- 
ness. We must get back to that point of view 
natural to all men who are not fallen, that work, 
and not idleness, is the indispensable condition of 



MY RELIGION. 201 

happiness for every human being ; that man cannot, 
in fact, refrain from work. We must rid ourselves 
of the savage prejudice which leads us to think 
that a man who has an income from a place under 
the government, from landed property, or from 
stocks and bonds, is in a natural and happy posi- 
tion because he is relieved from the necessity of 
work. We must get back into the human brain the 
idea of work possessed by undegenerate men, the 
idea that Jesus has, when he says that the laborer 
is worthy of his food. Jesus did not imagine that 
men would regard work as a curse, and conse- 
quently he did not have in mind a man who would 
not work, or desired not to work. He supposed 
that all his disciples would work, and so he said 
that if a man would work, his work would bring 
him food. He who makes use of the labor of 
another will provide food for him who labors, sim- 
ply because he profits by that labor. And so he 
who works will always have food ; he may not have 
property, but as to food, there need be no uncer- 
tainty whatever. 

With regard to work there is a difference between 
the doctrine of Jesus and the doctrine of the world. 
According to the doctrine of the world, it is very 
meritorious in a man to be willing to work ; he is 
thereby enabled to enter into competition with 
others, and to demand wages proportionate to his 
qualifications. According to the doctrine of Jesus, 
labor is the inevitable condition of human life, 
and food is the inevitable consequence of labor. 



202 3IT RELIGION. 

Labor produces food, and food produces labor. 
However cruel and grasping the employer may be, 
he will alwaj-s feed his workman, as he will always 
feed his horse ; he feeds him that he may get all the 
work possible, and in this wa}^ he conti'ibutes to the 
welfare of the workman. 

^'' For verily the Son of man came not to he min- 
istered unto., hut to minister and to give Ms life a 
ransom for many.'' 

According to the doctrine of Jesus, every indi- 
vidual will be the happier the more clearly he un- 
derstands that his vocation consists, not in exact- 
ing service from others, but in ministering to others, 
in giving his life for the ransom of man}^ A man 
who does this will be worthy of his food and will 
not fail to have it. By the words, " came not to he 
ministered unto hut to minister," Jesus established a 
method which would insure the material existence 
of man; and by the words, " ^7ie laborer is loorthy 
of his food,"" he anwered once for all the objection 
that a man who should practise the doctrine of 
Jesus in the midst of those who do not practise it 
would be in danger of perishing from hunger and 
cold. Jesus practised his own doctrine amid great 
opposition, and he did not perish from hunger and 
cold. He showed that a man does not insure his 
own subsistence by amassing worldly goods at the 
expense of others, but by rendering himself useful 
and indispensable to others. The more necessary 
he is to 
secure. 



MY RELIGION. 203 

There are in the world as it is now organized 
millions of men who possess no property and do 
not practise the doctrine of Jesus b}' ministering 
unto others, but the}' do not die of hunger. How, 
then, can we object to the doctrine of Jesus, that 
those who practise it by working for others will 
perish for want of food ? Men cannot die of hun- 
ger while the rich have bread. In Russia there are 
millions of men who possess nothing and subsist 
entirely by their own toil. The existence of a 
Christian would be as secure among pagans as it 
would be among those of his own faith. He would 
labor for others ; he would be necessary to them, 
and therefore he would be fed. Even a dog, if he 
be useful, is fed and cared for ; and shall not a 
man be fed and cared for whose service is neces- 
sary to the whole world? 

But those who seek by all possible means to jus- 
tif}" the personal life have another objection. They 
sa}' that if a man be sick, even if he have a wife, 
parents, and children dependent upon him, — if this 
man cannot work, he will not be fed. They say so, 
and they will continue to say so ; but their own 
actions prove that they do not believe what they 
say. These same people who will not admit that 
the doctrine of Jesus is practicable, practise it to a 
certain extent themselves. They do not cease to 
care for a sick sheep, a sick ox, or a sick dog. 
They do not kill an old horse, but the}^ give him 
work in proportion to his strength. They care for 
all sorts of animals without expecting any benefit 



204 MT RELIGION. 

in return ; and can it be that they will not care for 
a useful man who has fallen sick, that they will not 
find work suited to the strength of the old man and 
the child, that they will not care for the very babes 
who later on will be able to work for them in re- 
turn? As a matter of fact they do all this. Nine- 
tenths of men are cared for by the other tenth, like 
so many cattle. And however great the darkness 
in which this one-tenth live, however mistaken their 
views in regard to the other nine-tenths of humanity, 
the tenth, even if they had the power, would not de- 
prive the other nine-tenths of food. The rich will 
not deprive the poor of what is necessary, because 
they wish them to multiply and work, and so in 
these da^'s the little minority of rich people provide 
directly or iudirectl}' for the nourishment of the 
majority, that the latter may furnish the maximum 
of work, and multiply, and bring up a new supply 
of workers. Ants care for the increase and welfare 
of their slaves. Shall not men care for those whose 
labor they find necessary ? Laborers are necessary. 
And those who profit by labor will always be care- 
ful to provide the means of labor for those who are 
willing to work. 

The objection concerning the possibility of prac- 
tising the doctrine of Jesus, that if men do not 
acquire something for themselves and have wealth 
in reserve no one will take care of their families, is 
true, but it is true onlj^ in regard to idle and use- 
less and obnoxious people such as make up the 
majority of our opulent classes. No one (with the 



MY RELIGION. 205 

exception of foolish parents) takes the ti'ouble to 
care for lazj people, because lazy people are of no 
use to any one, not even to themselves ; as for the 
workers, the most selfish and cruel of men will con- 
ti'ibute to their welfare. People breed and train 
and care for oxen, and a man, as a beast of bur- 
den, is much more useful than an ox, as the tariff of 
the slave-mart shows. This is why children will 
never be left without support. 

Man is not in the world to work for himself ; 
he is in the world to work for others, and the 
laborer is worthy of his hire. These truths are 
justified by universal experience ; now, always, and 
everywhere, the man who labors receives the means 
of bodily subsistence. This subsistence is assured 
to him who works against his will ; for such a work- 
man desires only to relieve himself of the necessity 
of work, and acquires all that he possibly can in 
order that he may take the yoke from his own neck 
and place it upon the neck of another. A work- 
man like this — envious, grasping, toiling against 
his will — will never lack for food and will be hap- 
pier than one, who without labor, lives upon the 
labor of others. How much more happy, then, will 
that laborer be who labors in obedience to the doc- 
trine of Jesus with the object of accomplishing all 
the work of which he is capable and wishing for it 
the least possible return ? How much more desira- 
ble will his condition be, as, little by little, he sees 
his example followed by others. For services ren- 
dered he will then be the recipient of equal services 
in return. 



206 MY RELIGION. 

The doctrine of Jesus with regard to labor and 
the fruits of labor is expressed in the story of the 
loaves and fishes, wherein it was shown that man 
enjoys the greatest sum of the benefits accessible to 
humanity, not by appropriating all that he can pos- 
sibly grasp and using what he has for his personal 
pleasure, but by administering to the needs of 
others, as Jesus did by the borders of Galilee. 

There were several thousand men and women to 
be fed. One of the disciples told Jesus that there 
was a lad who had five loaves and two fishes. Jesus 
understood that some of the peoj^le coming from* a 
distance had brought provisions with them and 
that some had not, for after all were filled, the dis- 
ciples gathered up twelve basketsful of fragments. 
(If no one but the boy had brought anything, how 
could so much have been left after so many were 
fed?) If Jesus had not set them an example, the 
people would have acted as people of the world act 
now. Some of those who had food would have 
eaten all that they had through gluttony or avidity, 
and some, after eating what they could eat, would 
have taken the rest to their homes. Those who had 
nothing would have been famished, and would have 
regarded their more fortunate companions with envy 
and hatred ; some of them would perhaps have tried 
to take food by force from them who had it, and so 
hunger and anger and quarrels would have been the 
result. That is, the multitude would have acted 
just as people act nowadays. 

But Jesus knew exactly what to do. He asked 



MY RELIGION. 207 

that all be made to sit down, and then commanded 
his disciples to give of what they had to those who 
had nothing, and to request others to do the same. 
The result was that those who had food followed the 
example of Jesus and his disciples, and offered what 
they had to others. Every one ate and was satisfied, 
and with the broken pieces that remained the dis- 
ciples filled twelve baskets. 

Jesus teaches every man to govern his life by the 
law of reason and conscience, for the law of reason 
is as applicable to the individual as it is to humanit}^ 
at large. "Work is the inevitable condition of human 
life, the true source of human welfare. For this 
reason a refusal to divide the fruits of one's labor 
with others is a refusal to accept the conditions of 
true happiness. To give of the fruits of one's labor 
to others is to contribute to the welfare of all men. 
The retort is made that if men did not wrest food 
from others, they would die of hunger. To me it 
seems more reasonable to say, that if men do wrest 
their food from one another, some of them will die 
of hunger, and experience confirms this view. 

Every man, whether he lives according to the doc- 
trine of Jesus or according to the doctrine of the 
world, lives only b}^ the sufferance and care of others. 
From his birth, man is cared for and nourished by 
others. According to the doctrine of the world, 
man has a right to demand that others should con- 
tinue to nourish and care for him and for his family, 
but, according to the doctrine of Jesus, he is only 
entitled to care and nourishment on the condition 



208 MY RELIGION. 

that he do all he can for the service of others, and 
so render himself useful and indispensable to man- 
kind. Men who live according to the doctrine of the 
world are usually anxious to rid themselves of any 
one who is useless and whom they are obliged to 
feed ; at the fii'st possible opportunity they cease to 
feed such a one, and leave him to die, because of his 
uselessness ; but him who lives for others according 
to the doctrine of Jesus, all men, however wicked 
they may be, will always nourish and care for, that 
he ma}' continue to labor in their behalf. 

Which, then, is the more reasonable ; which offers 
the more joy and the greater security, a life accord- 
ing to the docti'ine of the world, or a life according 
to the doctrine of Jesus ? 



CHAPTER XI. 

THE doctrine of Jesus is to bring the kingdom 
of God upon earth. The practice of this doc- 
trine is not difficult ; and not only so, its practice 
is a natural expression of the belief of all who 
recognize its truth. The doctrine of Jesus offers 
the only possible chance of salvation for those who 
would escape the perdition that threatens the per- 
sonal life. The fulfilment of this doctrine not only 
will deliver men from the privations and sufferings 
of this life, but will put an end to nine-tenths of 
the suffering endured in behalf of the doctrine of 
the world. 

When I understood this I asked myself why I had 
never practised a doctrine which would give me so 
much happiness and peace and joy ; why, on the 
other hand, I always had practised an entirely dif- 
ferent doctrine, and thereby made myself wretched? 
Why? The reply was a simple one. Because I 
never had known the truth. The truth had been 
concealed from me. 

When the doctrine of Jesus was first revealed to 

me, I did not believe that the discovery would lead 

me to reject the doctrine of the Church. i I dreaded 

this separation, and in the course of my studies I 

1 See Appendix. 



210 MY RELIGION. 

did not attempt to search out the errors in the doc- 
trine of the Church. I sought, rather, to close my 
e^-es to propositions that seemed to be obscure and 
strange, provided they were not in evident contra- 
diction with what I regarded as the substance of the 
Christian doctrine. 

But the further I advanced in the study of the 
Gospels, and the more clearly the doctrine of Jesus 
was revealed to me, the more inevitable the choice 
became. I must either accept the doctrine of Jesus, 
a reasonable and simple doctrine in accordance with 
my conscience and m}' hope of salvation ; or I must 
accept an entirely different doctrine, a doctrine in 
opposition to reason and conscience and that offered 
me nothing except the certainty of my own perdition 
and that of others. I was therefore forced to reject, 
one after another, the dogmas of the Church. This 
I did against my will, struggling with the desire to 
mitigate as much as possible my disagreement with 
the Church, that I might not be obliged to separate 
from the Church, and thereby deprive myself of com- 
munion with fellow-believers, the greatest happiness 
that religion can bestow. But when I had completed 
my task, I saw that in spite of all my efforts to main- 
tain a connecting link with the Church, the separation 
was complete. I knew before that the bond of 
union, if it existed at all, must be a very slight one, 
but I was soon convinced that it did not exist at all. 

My son came to me one daj-, after I had completed 
my examination of the Gospels, and told me of a 
discussion that was going on between two domestics 



MY RELIGION. 211 

(uneducated persons who scarcely knew how to 
read) concerning a i^assage in some religious book 
which maintained that it was not a sin to put crim- 
inals to death, or to kill enemies in war. I could not 
believe that an assertion of this sort could be printed 
in any book, and I asked to see it. The volume bore 
the title of "-^ Book of Selected Prayers; third 
edition ; eighth ten thousand ; Moscow : 1879." On 
page 163 of this book I read : — 

' ' What is the sixth commandment of God ? 

'' Thou Shalt not kill. 

" What does God forbid by this commandment? 

" He forbids us to kill, to take the life of any man. 

" Is it a sin to punish a criminal with death accord- 
ing to the law, or to kill an enemy in war ? 

" No ; that is not a sin. We take the life of the 
criminal to put an end to the wrong that he commits ; 
we slay an enem}^ in war, because in war we fight 
for our sovereign and our native land." 

And in this manner was enjoined the abrogation 
of the law of God ! I could scarcely believe that I 
had read aright. 

My opinion was asked with regard to the subject 
at issue. To the one who maintained that the in- 
struction given by the book was true, I said that the 
explanation was not correct. 

"Why, then, do they print untrue explanations 
contrary to the law?" was his question, to which I 
could say nothing in reply. 

I kept the volume and looked over its contents. 
The book contained thirty-one prayers with instruc- 



212 MY RELIGION. 

tions concerning genuflexions and the joining of the 
fingers ; an explanation of the Credo ; a citation 
from the fifth chapter of Matthew without any ex- 
planation whatever, but headed, "Commands for 
those who would possess the Beatitudes " ; the ten 
commandments accompanied by comments that ren- 
dered most of them void ; and hymns for every 
saint's day. 

<r^As I have said, I not onl}^ had sought to avoid 
censure of the religion of the Church; I had done 
my best to see only its most favorable sidejy and 
knowing its academic literature from beginning to 
end, I had paid no attention whatever to its popular 
literature. This book of devotion, spread broadcast 
in an enormous number of copies, awakening doubts 
in the minds of the most unlearned people, set me to 
thinking. The contents of the book seemed to me 
so entirely pagan, so wholly out of accord with 
Christianit}', that I could not believe it to be the 
deliberate purpose of the Church to propagate such 
a doctrine. To verify my belief, I bought and read 
all the books published by the synod with its "bene- 
diction" (blagoslovnia) , containing brief expositions 
of the religion of the Church for the use of children 
and the common people. 

Their contents were to me almost entirely new, for 
at the time when I received my early religious instruc- 
tion, they had not yet appeared. As far as I could re- 
member there were no commandments with regard to 
the beatitudes, and there was no doctrine which taught 
that it was not a sin to kill. No such teachings ap- 



MY RELIGI02T. 213 

peared in the old catechisms ; the}' were not to be 
found in the catechism of Peter Mogilas, or in that 
of BeUokof, or the abridged Cathohc catechisms. 
The innovation was introduced by the metropohtan 
Philaret, who prepared a catechism with proper re- 
gard for the susceptibiUties of the miUtary class, and 
from this catechism the Book of Selected Prayers 
was compiled. Philaret's work is entitled, Tlie 
Christian Catechism of the Orthodox Church, for the 
Use of cdl Orthodox CJiristians, and is published, 
" by order of his Imperial Majesty." ^ 

The book is divided into three parts, "Concern- 
ing Faith," " Concerning Hope," and " Concerning 
Love." The first part contains the analysis of the 
symbol of faith as given b}' the Council of Nice. 
The second part is made up of an exposition of the 
Pater Noster, and the first eight verses of the fifth 
chapter of Matthew, which serve as an introduction 
to the Sermon on the Mount, and are called (I know 
not why) " Commands for those who would possess 
the Beatitudes." These first two parts treat of the 
dogmas of the Church, prayers, and the sacraments, 
but they contain no rules with regard to the conduct 
of life. The third part, " Concerning Love," con- 
tains an exposition of Christian duties, based not on 
the commandments of Jesus, but upon the ten com- 
mandments of Moses. This exposition of the com- 
mandments of Moses seems to have been made for 
the especial purpose of teaching men not to obey 

1 This book has been in use in all the schools and churches of 
Russia since 1839. — Tr. 



214 MT RELIGION. 

lliem. Each commandment is followed by a reser- 
vation which completely destro3's it force. With re- 
gard to the first commandment, which enjoins the 
worship of God alone, the catechism inculcates the 
worship of saints and angels, to say nothing of the 
Mother of God and the three persons of the Trinity 
(" Special Catechism," pp. 107, 108) . With regard 
to the second commandment, against the worship of 
idols, the catechism enjoins the worship of images 
(p. 108). With regard to the third commandment, 
the catechism enjoins the taking of oaths as the 
principal token of legitimate authoritj' (p. 111). 
With regard to the fourth commandment, concern- 
ing the observance of the Sabbath, the catechism 
inculcates the observance of Sunday, of the thirteen 
principal feasts, of a number of feasts of less impor- 
tance, the observance of Lent, and of fasts on 
Wednesdays and Fridays (pp. 112-115). With re- 
gard to the fifth commandment, '•'- Honor thy father 
and thy mother^'" the catechism prescribes honor to 
the sovereign, the country, spiritual fathers, all per- 
sons in authority, and of these last gives an enumer- 
ation in three pages, including college authorities, 
civil, judicial, and military authorities, and owners 
of serfs, with instructions as to the manner of honor- 
ing each of these classes (pp. 116-119). My cita- 
tions are taken from the sixty-fourth edition of the 
catechism, dated 1880. Twenty years have passed 
since the abolition of serfdom, and no one has taken 
the trouble to strike out the phrase which, in con- 
nection with the commandment of God to honor 



MT RELIGION. 215 

parents, was introduced into the catecliism to sustain 
and justify slavery. 

With regard to the sixth commandment, " Tlio^t 
slialt not lill," the instructions of the catechism are 
from the first in favor of murder. 

" Question. — What does the sixth commandment 
forbid ? 

" Ansiver. — It forbids manslaughter, to take the 
life of one's neighbor in any manner whatever. 

" Question. — Is all manslaughter a transgression 
of the law? 

^'Ansiver. — Manslaughter is not a transgression 
of the law when life is taken in pursuance of its 
mandate. For example : 

"1st. When a criminal condemned in justice is 
punished by death. 

" 2d. When we kill in tvar for the sovereign and 
our country." 

The italics are in the original. Further on we 
read : — 

" Question. — With regard to manslaughter, when 
is the law transgressed ? 

' ' Answer. — When any one conceals a murderer 
or sets him at liberty " (sic). 

All this is printed in hundreds of thousands of 
copies, and under the name of Christian doctrine is 
taught by compulsion to every Eussian, who is 
obliged to receive it under penalty of castigation. 
This is taught to all the Russian people. It is 
taught to the innocent children, — to the children 
whom Jesus commanded to be brought to him as 



216 MY RELIGION. 

belonging to the kingdom of God ; to the children 
whom we must resemble, in ignorance of false doc- 
trines, to enter into the kingdom of God ; to the 
children whom Jesus tried to protect in proclaiming 
woe on him who should cause one of the little ones 
to stumble ! And the little children are obliged to 
learn all this, and are told that it is the only and 
sacred law of God. These are not proclamations 
sent out clandestinely, whose authors are punished 
with penal servitude ; they are proclamations which 
inflict the punishment of penal servitude upon all 
those who do not agree with the doctrines they 
inculcate. 

As I write these lines, I experience a feeling of 
insecurity, simply because I have allowed myself to 
say that men cannot render void the fundamental 
law of God inscribed in all the codes and in all 
hearts, by such words as these : — 

" Manslauo-hter is not a transojression of the law 
when life is taken in pursuance of its mandate. . . . 
when we kill in war for our sovereign and our 
country." 

I tremble because I have allowed myself to say 
that such things should not be taught to children. 

It was against such teachings as these that Jesus 
warned men when he said ; — 

'•'- Look^ therefore^ icJiether the light that is in thee 
be not darJiness." (Luke xi. 35.) 

The light that is in us has become darkness ; and 
the darkness of our lives is full of terror. 

" Woe unto you^ scribes and Pharisees, hypo- 



MY RELIGION. 217 

crites I because ye shut the kingdom of heaven against 
men: for ye enter not in yourselves.) neither suffer ye 
them that are entering in to enter. Woe unto you., 
scribes and Pharisees^ hypocrites! for ye devour 
ividows' houses, even ivhile for a pretence ye make 
long prayers : therefore ye shcdl receive greater con- 
demnation. Woe unto you., scribes and Pharisees., 
hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one 
proselyte; and ivhen he is become so, ye make him 
twofold more a son of hell than yourselves. Woe 
unto you, ye blind guides. . . . 

" Woe unto you, sciibes and Pharisees, hypo- 
crites! for ye build the sepulchres of the prophets, and 
garnish the tombs of the righteous, and say. If ice had 
been in the days of our fathers, ice should not have 
been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. 
Wherefore ye witness to yourselves, that ye are sons 
of them that slew the prophets. Fill ye up, then, the 
measure of your fathers. . . . I send unto you proph- 
ets, and wise men, and scribes: some of them shall ye 
kill and crucify ; and some of them shcdl ye scourge 
in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city : 
that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed 
on the earth, from the blood of Abel. , . . 

'^ Every sin and blasphemy shcdl be forgiven unto 
men; but the blasphemy against the Spirit shcdl not 
he forgiven." 

Of a truth we might say that all this was written 
but yesterday, not against men who no longer com- 
pass sea and land to blaspheme against the Spirit, 
or to convert men to a religion that renders its pros- 



218 MT RELIGION. 

elytes worse than they were before, but against men 
who deliberately force people to embrace their relig- 
ion, and persecute and bring to death all the 
prophets and the righteous who seek to reveal their 
falsehoods to mankind. I became convinced that 
the doctrine of the Church, although bearing the 
name of " Christian," is one with the darkness 
against which Jesus struggled, and against which he 
commanded his disciples to strive. 

The doctrine of Jesus, like all religious doctrines, 
is regarded in two ways, — first, as a moral and 
ethical system which teaches men how they should 
live as individuals, and in relation to each other ; 
second, as a metaphysical theory which explains 
why men should live in a given manner and not 
otherwise. One necessitates the other. Man should 
live in this manner because such is his destiny ; or, 
man's destiny is this way, and consequently he should 
follow it. These two methods of doctrinal expres- 
sion are common to all the religions of the world, to 
the religion of the Brahmins, to that of Confucius, 
to that of Buddha, to that of Moses, and to that of 
the Christ. But, with regard to the docti'ine of 
Jesus, as with regard to all other doctrines, men 
wander from its precepts, and they always find some 
one to justify their deviations. Those who, as Jesus 
said, sit in Moses' seat, explain the metaphysical 
theory in such a way that the ethical prescriptions 
of the doctrine cease to be regarded as obligator}-, 
and are replaced hy external forms of worship, by 
ceremonial. This is a condition common to all re- 



MY RELIGION. 219 

ligions, but, to me, it seems that it never has been 
manifested with so much pomp as in connection with 
Christianit}', — and for two reasons : first, because 
the doctrine of Jesus is the most elevated of all doc- 
trines (the most elevated because the metaphysical 
and ethical portions are so closely united that one 
cannot be separated from the other without destroy- 
ing the vitality of the whole) ; second, because the 
doctrine of Jesus is in itself a protest against all 
forms, a negation not only of Jewish ceremonial, 
but of all exterior rites of worship. Therefore, the 
arbitrary separation of the metaphysical and ethical 
aspects of Christianity entirely disfigures the doc- 
trine, and deprives it of every sort of meaning. The 
separation began with the preaching of Paul, who 
knew but imperfectly the ethical doctrine set forth in 
the Gospel of Matthew, and who preached a meta- 
physico-cabalistic theory entirely foreign to the doc- 
trine of Jesus ; and this theory was perfected under 
Constantine, when the existing pagan social organiza- 
tion was proclaimed Christian simply by covering it 
with the mantle of Christianity. After Constantine, 
that arch-pagan, whom the Church in spite of all his 
crimes and vices admits to the category of the 
saints, after Constantine began the domination of 
the councils, and the centre of gravity of Christian- 
ity was permanently displaced till only the meta- 
physical portion was left in view. And this meta- 
physical theory with its accompanying ceremonial 
deviated more and more from its true and primitive 
meaning, until it has reached its present stage of 



220 MY RELIGION. 

development, as a doctrine which explains the mys- 
teries of a celestial life beyond the comprehension of 
human reason, and, with all its complicated formulas, 
gives no religious guidance whatever with regard to 
the regulation of this earthh^ life. 

All religions, with the exception of the religion of 
the Christian Church, demand from their adherents 
aside from forms and ceremonies, the practice of 
certain actions called good, and abstinence from 
certain actions that are called bad. The Jewish 
religion prescribed circumcision, the observance of 
the Sabbath, the giving of alms, the feast of the 
Passover. Mohammedanism prescribes circumcision, 
prayer five times a day, the giving of tithes to the 
poor, pilgrimage to the tomb of the Prophet, and 
many other things. It is the same with all other 
religions. Whether these prescriptions are good or 
bad, they are prescriptions which exact the perform- 
ance of certain actions. Pseudo-Christianity alone 
prescribes nothing. There is nothing that a 
Christian is obliged to observe except fasts and 
prayei-s, which the Church itself does not recognize 
as obligatory. All that is necessary to the pseudo- 
Christian is the sacrament. But the sacrament is 
not fulfilled by the believer ; it is administered to 
him by others. The pseudo-Christian is obliged to 
do nothing or to abstain from nothing for his own 
salvation, since the Church administers to him 
everything of which he has need. The Church 
baptizes him, anoints him, gives him the eucha- 
rist, confesses him, even after he has lost con- 



MY RELIGION. 221 

sciousness, administers extreme unction to him, and 
pra3-s for bim, — and he is saved. From the time 
of Constantine the Christian Church has prescribed 
no religious duties to its adlierents. It has never 
required that they should abstain from anything. 
The Christian Church has recognized and sanctioned 
divorce, slavery, tribunals, all earthly powers, the 
death penalty, and war ; it has exacted nothing 
except a renunciation of a purpose to do evil on the 
occasion of baptism, and this only in its early da3's : 
later on, when infant baptism was introduced, even 
this requirement was no longer observed. 

The Church confesses the doctrine of Jesus in 
theory, but denies it in practice. Instead of guiding 
the life of the world, the Church, through affection 
for the world, expounds the metaphysical doctrine 
of Jesus in such a way as not to derive from it any 
obligation as to the conduct of life, any necessity 
for men to live differently from the way in which 
they have been living. The Church has surrendered 
to the world, and simply follows in the train of its 
victor. The world does as it pleases, and leaves to 
the Church the task of justifying its actions with 
explanations as to the meaning of life. The world 
organizes an existence in absolute opposition to the 
doctrine of Jesus, and the Church endeavors to 
demonstrate that men who live contrary to the doc- 
trine of Jesus really live in accordance with that 
doctrine. The final result is that the world lives a 
worse than pagan existence, and the Church not 
only approves, but maintains that this existence is 
in exact conformity to the doctrine of Jesus. 



222 MY RELIGION-. 

But a time comes when the hght of the true doc- 
trine of Jesus shines forth from the Gospels, not- 
withstanding the guilty efforts of the Church to 
conceal it from men's eyes, as, for instance, in pro- 
hibiting the translation of the Bible ; there comes a 
time when the light reaches the people, even through 
the medium of sectarians and free-thinkers, and the 
falsity of the doctrine of the Church is shown so 
clearly that men begin to transform the method of 
living that the Church has justified. 

Thus men of their own accord, and in opposition 
to the sanction of the Church, have abolished slavery, 
abolished the divine right of emperors and popes, 
and are now proceeding to abolish property and the 
State. And the Church cannot forbid such action 
because the abolition of these iniquities is in con- 
formity to the Christian doctrine, that the Church 
preaches after having falsified. 

And in this way the conduct of human life is freed 
from the control of the Church, and subjected to an 
entirely different authority. The Church retains its 
dogmas, but what are its dogmas worth? A meta- 
physical explanation can be of use only when there 
is a doctrine of life which it serves to make mani- 
fest. But the Church possesses only the explana- 
tion of an organization which it once sanctioned, and 
which no longer exists. The Church has nothing left 
but temples and shrines and canonicals and vest- 
ments and words. 

For eighteen centuries the Church has hidden the 
light of Christianity behind its forms and ceremo- 



MY RELIGION. 223 

nials, and by this same light it is put to shame. 
The world, with an organization sanctioned by the 
Church, has rejected the Church in the name of the 
very principles of Christianity that the Church has 
professed. The separation between the two is com- 
plete and cannot be concealed. Everything that 
truly lives in the world of Europe to-day (every- 
thing not cold and dumb in hateful isolation) , — 
everything that is living, is detached from the Church, 
from all churches, and has an existence independent 
of the Church. Let it not be said that this is true 
only of the decayed civilizations of Western Europe. 
Russia, with its millions of civilized and uncivilized 
Christian rationalists, who have rejected the doctrine 
of the Church, j^roves incontestably that as regards 
emancipation from the yoke of the Church, she is, 
thanks be to God, in a worse condition of decay 
than the rest of Europe. 

All that lives is independent of the Church. The 
power of the State is based upon tradition, upon 
science, upon popular suffrage, upon brute force, 
upon everything except upon the Church. Wars, 
the relation of State with State, are governed by 
principles of nationality, of the balance of power, 
but not by the Church. The institutions established 
by the State frankh* ignore the Church. The idea 
that the Church can, in these times, serve as a basis 
for justice or the conservation of property, is simply 
absurd. Science not only does not sustain the doc- 
trine of the Church, but is, in its development, 
entirely hostile to the Church. Art, formerly entirely 



224 MY RELIGION. 

devoted to the service of the Church, has wholly 
forsaken the Church. It is little to say that human 
life is now entirely emancipated from the Church ; 
it has now, with regard to the Church, onl}- con- 
tempt when the Church does not interfere with 
human affairs, and hatred when the Church seeks to 
re-assert its ancient privileges. The Church is still 
permitted a formal existence simply because men 
dread to shatter the chalice that once contained the 
water of life. In this way only can we account, in 
our age, for the existence of Catholicism, of Ortho- 
doxy, and of the different Protestant churches. 

All these churches — Catholic, Orthodox, Protes- 
tant — are like so many sentinels still keeping 
careful watch before the prison doors, although the 
prisoners have long been at liberty before their eyes, 
and even threaten their existence. All that actuall}^ 
constitutes life, that is, the activity of humanity 
towards progress and its own welfare, socialism, 
communism, the new politico-economical theories, 
utilitarianism, the liberty and equality of all social 
classes, and of men and women, all the moral prin- 
ciples of humanit}^, the sanctity of work, reason, 
science, art, — all these that lend an impulse to the 
world's progress in hostility to the Church are only 
fragments of the doctrine which the Church has 
professed, and so carefull}^ endeavored to conceal. 
In these times, the life of the world is entirel}' inde- 
pendent of the doctrine of the Church. The Church 
is left so far behind, that men no longer hear the 
voices of those who preach its doctrines. This is 



MY RELIGION. 225 

easily to be understood because the Church still 
clings to an organization of the world's life, which 
has been forsaken, and is rapidly falling to de- 
struction. 

Imagine a number of men rowing a boat, a pilot 
steering. The men rely upon the pilot, and the 
pilot steers well ; but after a time the good pilot 
is replaced by another, who does not steer at all. 
The boat moves along rapidly and easily. At first 
the men do not notice the negligence of the new 
pilot ; they are onl}' pleased to find that the boat 
goes along so easily. Then they discover that the 
new pilot is utterly useless, and they mock at him, 
and drive him from his place. 

The matter would not be so serious if the men, in 
thrusting aside the unskilful pilot, did not forget that 
without a pilot they are likely to take a wrong course. 
But so it is with our Christian society. The Church 
has lost its control ; we move smoothly onward, and 
we are a long way from our point of departure. 
Science, that especial pride of this nineteenth ceutmy , 
is sometimes alarmed ; but that is because of the 
absence of a pilot. We are moving onward, but to 
what goal? We organize our life without in the 
least knowing why, or to what end. But we can no 
longer be contented to live without knowing why, any 
more than we can navigate a boat without knowing 
the course that we are following. 

If men could do nothing of themselves, if they were 
not responsible for their condition, they might very 
reasonably reply to the question, " Why are you in 



226 MT RELTGIOIf. 

this situation ? " — " We do not know ; but here we 
are, and submit." But men are the builders of their 
own destiny, and more especially of the destiny of 
their children ; and so when we ask, " Why do you 
bring together millions of troops, and why do you 
make soldiers of yourselves, and mangle and murder 
one another ? Why have you expended, and why do 
3'ou still expend, an enormous sum of human energy 
in the construction of useless and unhealthf ul cities ? 
AYhy do you organize ridiculous tribunals, and send 
people whom you consider as criminals from France 
to Cayenne, from Russia to Siberia, from England 
to Australia, when j^ou know the hopeless folly of 
it? Why do you abandon agriculture, which you 
love, for work in factories and mills, which you de- 
spise ? Why do you bring up your children in a way 
that will force them to lead an existence which you 
find worthless ? Why do you do this ? " To all these 
questions men feel obliged to make some reply. 

If this existence were an agTeeable one, and men 
took pleasure in it, even then men would try to ex- 
plain why they continued to live under such condi- 
tions. But all these things are terribly difficult ; they 
are endured with murmuring and painful struggles, 
and men cannot refrain from reflecting upon the mo- 
tive which impels them to such a course. They 
must cease to maintain the accepted organization of 
existence, or they must explain why they give it 
their support. And so men never have allowed this 
question to pass unanswered. We find in all ages 
some attempt at a response. The Jew lived as he 



MY RELIGIOy. 227 

lived, that is, made war, put criminals to death, 
built the Temple, organized his entire existence in 
one wa}' and not another, because, as he was con- 
vinced, he thereb}^ followed the laws which God him- 
self had promulgated. We may say the same of the 
Hindu, the Chinaman, the Roman, and the Moham- 
medan. A similar response was given by the 
Christian a century ago, and is given b}" the great 
mass of Christians now. 

A century ago, and among the ignorant now, the 
nominal Christian makes this reply : ' ' Compulsory 
military service, wars, tribunals, and the death pen- 
alty, all exist in obedience to the law of God trans- 
mitted to us by the Church. This is a fallen world. 
All the evil that exists, exists by God's will, as a 
punishment for the sins of men. For this reason 
we can do nothing to palliate evil. We can only 
save our own souls by faith, bj' the sacraments, by 
praj'ers, and by submission to the will of God as 
transmitted by the Church. The Church teaches us 
that all Christians should unhesitatingly obey their 
rulers, who are the Lord's anointed, and obey also 
persons placed in authority by rulers ; that they 
ought to defend their property and that of others by 
force, wage war, inflict the death penalty, and in all 
things submit to the authorities, who command by 
the will of God." 

TS"^hatever we maj* think of the reasonableness of 
these explanations, they once sufficed for a believing 
Christian, as similar explanations satisfied a Jew or 
a Mohammedan, and men were not obliged to re- 



228 MT RELIGION. 

nounce all reason for living according to a law 
which they recognized as divine. But in this time 
only the most ignorant people have faith in any such 
explanations, and the number of these diminishes 
every day and every hour. It is impossible to check 
this tendency. Men irresistibly follow those who 
lead the way, and sooner or later must pass over the 
same ground as the advance guard. The advance 
guard is now in a critical position ; those who com- 
pose it organize life to suit themselves, prepare the 
same conditions for those who are to follow, and ab- 
solutelj' have not the slightest idea of why they do 
so. No civilized man in the vanguard of progress 
is able to give anyreph^now to the dh-ect questions, 
" AVhy do you lead the life that you do lead? Why 
do you establish the conditions that you do estab- 
lish?" I have propounded these questions to hun- 
dreds of people, and never have got from them a 
direct reply. Instead of a direct reply to the direct 
question, I have received in return a response to a 
question that I had not asked. 

. When we ask a Catholic, or Protestant, or Ortho- 
dox believer why he leads an existence contrary to 
the doctrine of Jesus, instead of making a direct 
response he begins to speak of the melancholy state 
of scepticism characteristic of this generation, of 
evil-minded persons who spread doubt broadcast 
among the masses, of the importance of the future 
of the existing Church. But he will not tell 3'ou why 
he does not act in conformity to the commands of 
the religion that he professes. Instead of speaking 



3fT RELIGION. 229 

of Lis own condition, he will talk to you about the 
condition of humanity in general, and of that of the 
Church, as if his own life were not of the slightest 
significance, and his sole preoccupations were the 
salvation of humanity, and of what he calls the 
Church. 

A philosopher of whatever school he may be, 
whether an idealist or a spiritualist, a pessimist or a 
positivist, if we ask of him why he lives as he lives, 
that is to say, in disaccord with his philosophical 
doctrine, will begin at once to talk about the progress 
of humanity and about the historical law of this 
progress which he has discovered, and in virtue of 
which humanity gravitates toward righteousness. 
But he never will make any direct repl^^ to the ques- 
tion why he himself, on his own account, does not 
live in harmony with what he recognizes as the 
dictates of reason. It would seem as if the philoso- 
pher were as preoccupied as the believer, not with 
his personal life, but with observing the effect of 
general laws upon the development of humanity. 

The " average " man (that is, one of the immense 
majority of civilized people who are half sceptics and 
half believers, and who all, without exception, de- 
plore existence, condemn its organization, and pre- 
dict universal destruction), — the average man, 
when we ask him why he continues to lead a life 
that he condemns, without making any effort towards 
its amelioration, makes no direct reply, but begins 
at once to talk about things in general, about justice, 
about the State, about commerce, about civilization. 



230 MT religion: 

If he be a member of the police or a prosecuting 
attornej-, he asks, " And what would become of the 
State, if I, to ameliorate my existence, were to cease 
to serve it ? " " What would become of commerce ? " 
is his demand if he be a merchant; "What of 
civilization, if I cease to work for it, and seek only 
to better my own condition?" will be the objection 
of another. His response always will be in this 
form, as if the duty of his life were not to seek the 
good conformable to his nature, but to serve the 
State, or commerce, or civilization. 

The average man replies in just the same manner 
as does the believer or the philosopher. Instead of 
making the question a personal one, he glides at 
once to generalities. This subterfuge is employed 
simply because the believer and the philosopher, and 
the average man have no positive doctrine concern- 
ing existence, and cannot, therefore, reply to the 
personal question, ' ' What of your own life ? " They 
are disgusted and humiliated at not possessing the 
slightest trace of a doctrine with regard to life, for 
no one can live in peace without some understanding 
of what life really means. But nowadays only 
Christians cling to a fantastic and worn-out creed as 
an explanation of why life is as it is, and is not 
otherwise. Only Christians give the name of relig- 
ion to a system which is not of the least use to any 
one. Only among Christians is life separated from 
any or all doctrine, and left without any definition 
whatever. Moreover, science, like tradition, has 
formulated from the fortuitous and abnormal con- 



MY RELIGION. 231 

dition of Immanity a general law. Learned men, 
such as Tiele and Spencer, treat religion as a serious 
matter, understanding by religion the metaphj'sical 
doctrine of the universal principle, without suspect- 
ing that they have lost sight of religion as a whole 
by confining their attention entirely to one of its 
phases. 

From all this we get very extraordinary results. 
We see learned and intelligent men artlessly believ- 
ing that they are emancipated from all religion simply 
because they reject the metaphysical explanation of 
the universal principle which satisfied a former 
generation. It does not occur to them that men 
cannot live without some theory of existence ; that 
every human being lives according to some princi- 
ple, and that this principle by which he governs his 
life is his religion. The people of whom we have 
been speaking are persuaded that they have reason- 
able convictions, but that they have no religion. 
Nevertheless, however serious their asseverations, 
the}' have a religion from the moment that they 
undertake to govern their actions by reason, for a 
reasonable act is determined b}' some sort of faith. 
Now their faith is in what they are told to do. The 
faith of those who deny religion is in a religion of 
obedience to the will of the ruling majority ; in a 
word, submission to established authority. 

We may live a purely animal life according to the 
doctrine of the world, without recognizing any con- 
trolling motive more binding than the rules of estab- 
lished authority. But he who lives this way cannot 



232 MT RELIGION. 

afiSrm that he lives a reasonable life. Before affirm- 
ing that we live a reasonable life, we must determine 
what is the doctrine of the life which we regard as 
reasonable. Alas ! wretched men that we are, we 
possess not the semblance of any such doctrine, and 
more than that, we have lost all perception of the 
necessity for a reasonable doctrine of life. 

Ask the believers or sceptics of this age, what 
doctrine of life they follow. They will be obliged 
to confess that they follow but one doctrine, the 
doctrine based upon laws formulated by the judiciar}'^ 
or by legislative assemblies, and enforced hj the 
police — the favorite doctrine of most Europeans. 
Thej' know that this doctrine does not come from on 
high, or from prophets, or from sages ; they are 
continually finding fault with the laws di'awn up by 
the judiciary or formulated by legislative assemblies, 
but nevertheless they submit to the police charged 
with their enforcement. They submit without mur- 
muring to the most terrible exactions. The clerks 
employed by the judiciary or the legislative assem- 
blies decree by statute that every young man must 
be ready to take up arms, to kill others, and to die 
himself, and that all parents who have adult sons 
must favor obedience to this law w^hich was drawn 
up yesterday by a mercenary official, and may be 
revoked to-morrow. 

We have lost sight of the idea that a law may be 
in itself reasonable, and binding upon every one in 
spirit as well as in letter. The Hebrews possessed 
a law which regulated life, not by forced obedience 



MY RELIGION. 233 

to its requirements, but by appealing to the con- 
science of each individual ; and the existence of 
this law is considered as an exceptional attribute of 
the Hebrew people. That the Hebrews should have 
been willing to obey only what they recognized by 
spiritual perception as the incontestable truth direct 
from God is considered a remarkable national trait. 
But it appears that the natural and normal state of 
civilized men is to obey what to their own knowl- 
edge is decreed by despicable officials and enforced 
by the co-operation of armed police. 

The distinctive trait of civilized man is to obey 
what the majority of men regard as iniquitous, con- 
trary to conscience. I seek in vain in civilized 
societ}' as it exists to-day for any clearly formulated 
moral bases of life. There are none. No percep- 
tion of their necessity exists. On the contrar}^, we 
find the extraordinary conviction that they are 
superfluous ; that religion is nothing more than a 
few words about God and a future life, and a few 
ceremonies very useful for the salvation of the soul 
according to some, and good for nothing according 
to others ; but that life happens of itself and has no 
need of any fundamental rule, and that we have 
only to do what we are told to do. 

The two substantial sources of faith, the doctrine 
that governs life, and the explanation of the mean- 
ing of life, are regarded as of very unequal value. 
The first is considered as of very little importance, 
and as having no relation to faith whatever ; the 
second, as the explanation of a bygone state of 



234 MY RELIGION. 

existence, or as made up of speculations concerning 
the historical development of life, is considered as 
of great significance. As to all that constitutes the 
life of man expressed in action, the members of our 
modern society depend willingly for guidance upon 
people who, like themselves, know not why they 
direct their fellows to live in one way and not in 
another. This disposition holds good whether the 
question at issue is to decide whether to kill or not 
to kill, to judge or not to judge, to bring up children 
in this way or in that. And men look upon an 
existence like this as reasonable, and have no feel- 
ing of shame ! 

The explanations of the Church which pass for 
faith, and the true faith of our generation, which is 
in obedience to social laws and the laws of the 
State, have reached a stage of sharp antagonism. 
The majorit}' of civilized people have nothing to 
regulate life but faith in the police. This condition 
would be unbearable if it were universal. Fortu- 
nately there is a remnant, made up of the noblest 
minds of the age, who are not contented with this 
religion, but have an entirely different faith with 
regard to what the life of man ought to be. These 
men are looked upon as the most malevolent, the 
most dangerous, and generally as the most unbe- 
lieving of all human beings, and yet they are the 
only men of our time believing in the Gospel doc- 
trine, if not as a whole, at least in part. These 
people, as a general thing, know little of the doc- 
trine of Jesus ; they do not understand it, and, like 



MY RELIGION. 235 

their adversaries, they refuse to accept the leading 
principle of the religion of Jesns, which is to resist 
not evil ; often they have nothing but a hatred for 
the name of Jesus ; but their whole faith with regard 
to what life ought to be is unconsciously based upon 
the humane and eternal truths comprised in the 
Christian doctrine. This remnant, in spite of cal- 
umny and persecution, are the only ones who do not 
tamely submit to the orders of the first comer. 
Consequently they are the only ones in these days 
who live a reasonable and not an animal life, the 
only ones who have faith. 

The connecting link between the world and the 
Church, although carefully cherished by the Church, 
l)ecomes more and more attenuated. To-day it is 
little more than a hindrance. The union between 
the Church and the world has no longer any justifi- 
cation. The mysterious process of maturation is 
going on before our eyes. The connecting bond 
will soon be severed, and the vital social organism 
will begin to exercise its functions as a wholly 
independent existence. The doctrine of the Church, 
with its dogmas, its councils, and its hierarchy, is 
manifestly united to the doctrine of Jesus. The 
connecting link is as perceptible as the cord which 
binds the newly-born child to its mother ; but as the 
umbilical cord and the placenta become after par- 
turition useless pieces of flesh, which are carefully 
buried out of regard for what they once nourished, 
so the Church has become a useless organism, to be 
preserved, if at all, in some museum of curiosities 



236 MY RELIGION. 

out of regard for what it has once been. As soon 
as respiration and circulation are established, the 
former source of nutrition becomes a hindrance to 
life. Vain and foolish would it be to attempt to 
retain the bond, and to force the child that has 
come into the light of day to receive its nourish- 
ment by a pre-natal process. But the deliverance 
of the child from the maternal tie does not ensure 
life. The life of the newly born depends upon 
another bond of union which is established between 
it and its mother that its nourishment may be main- 
tained. 

And so it must be with our Christian world of 
to-da}^ The doctrine of Jesus has brought the 
world into the light. The Church, one of the 
organs of the doctrine of Jesus, has fulfilled its 
mission and is now useless. The world cannot be 
bound to the Church ; but the deliverance of the 
world from the Church will not ensure life. Life 
will begin when the world perceives its own weak- 
ness and the necessity for a different source of 
strength. The Christian world feels this necessity : 
it proclaims its helplessness, it feels the impossi- 
bility of depending upon its former means of nour- 
ishment, the inadequacy of any other form of nour- 
ishment except that of the doctrine b}" which it was 
brought forth. This modern European world of 
ours, apparently so sure of itself, so bold, so 
decided, and within so preyed upon by terror and 
despair, is exactl}^ in the situation of a newly born 
animal : it writhes, it cries aloud, it is perplexed, it 



31 Y RELIGION. 237 

knows not what to do ; it feels that its former 
source of nourishment is withdrawn, but it knows 
not where to seek for another. A newly born lamb 
shakes its head, opens its ej^es and looks about, and 
leaps, and bounds, and would make us think by its 
apparently intelligent movements that it already has 
mastered the secret of living ; but of this the poor 
little creature knows nothing. The impetuosity and 
energy it displays were drawn from its mother 
through a medium of transmission that has just been 
broken, nevermore to be renewed. The situation 
of the new comer is one of delight, and at the same 
time is full of peril. It is animated by youth and 
strength, but it is lost if it cannot avail itself of the 
nourishment only to be had from its mother. 

And so it is with our European world. What 
complex activities, what energy, what intelligence, 
does it apparently possess ! It would seem as if all 
its deeds were governed by reason. With what 
enthusiasm, what vigor, what youthfulness do the 
denizens of this modern world manifest their 
abounding vitality ! The arts and sciences, the 
various industries, political and administrative de- 
tails, all are full of life. But this life is due to in- 
spiration received through the connecting link that 
binds it to its source. The Church, by transmitting 
the truth of the doctrine of Jesus, has communicated 
life to the world. Upon this nourishment the world 
has grown and developed. But the Church has had 
its da}^ and is now" superfluous. 

The world is possessed of a living organism ; the 



238 MY RELIGION. 

means by T^^hich it former^ received its nourishment 
has withered away, and it has not yet found an- 
other ; and it seeks everywhere, everywhere but at 
the true source of Hfe. It still possesses the anima- 
tion derived from nourishment already received, and 
it does not yet understand that its future nourish- 
ment is only to be had from one source, and by its 
own efforts. The world must now understand that 
the period of gestation is ended, and that a new 
process of conscious nutrition must henceforth 
maintain its life. The truth of the doctrine of 
Jesus, once unconsciously absorbed by humanity 
through the organism of the Church, must now be 
consciously recognized ; for in the truth of this doc- 
trine humanit}' has alwa3's obtained its vital force. 
Men must lift up the torch of truth, which has so 
long remained concealed, and carry it before them, 
guiding their actions by its light. 

The doctrine of Jesus, as a religion that governs 
the actions of men and explains to them the mean- 
ing of life, is now before the world just as it was 
eighteen hundred years ago. Formerly the world 
had the explanations of the Church which, in con- 
cealing the doctrine, seemed in itself to offer a 
satisfactory interpretation of life ; but now the time 
is come when the Church has lost its usefulness, 
and the world, having no other means for sustaining 
its true existence, can only feel its helplessness and 
go for aid directly to the doctrine of Jesus. 

Now, Jesus first taught men to believe in the 
light, and that the hght is within themselves. Jesus 



MY RELIGION-. 239 

taught men to lift on high the light of reason. He 
taught them to live, guiding their actions by this 
light, and to do nothing contrarj^ to reason. It is 
unreasonable, it is foolish, to go out to kill Turks or 
Germans ; it is unreasonable to make use of the 
labor of others that you and yours may be clothed 
in the height of fashion and maintain that mortal 
source of ennui, a salon ; it is unreasonable to take 
people already corrupted b}' idleness and depravity 
and shut them up within prison walls, and thereby 
devote them to an existence of absolute idleness 
and deprivation ; it is unreasonable to live in the 
pestilential air of cities when a purer atmosphere is 
within your reach ; it is unreasonable to base the 
education of your children on the grammatical laws 
of dead languages; — all this is unreasonable, and 
yet it is to-day the life of the European world, 
which lives a life of no meaning ; which acts, but 
acts without a purpose, having no confidence in 
reason, and existing in opposition to its decrees. 

The doctrine of Jesus is the light. The light 
shines forth, and the darkness cannot conceal it. 
Men cannot deny it, men cannot refuse to accept its 
guidance. They must depend on the doctrine of 
Jesus, which penetrates among all the errors with 
which the life of men is surrounded. Like the in- 
sensible ether filling universal space, enveloping all 
created things, so the doctrine of Jesus is inevitable 
for every man in whatever situation he may be 
found. Men cannot refuse to recognize the doc- 
trine of Jesus ; they may deny the metaphysical 



240 M7 religion: 

explanation of life wliieli it gives (we may deny 
eyerythiug) , but the doctrine of Jesus alone offers 
rules for the conduct of life without which humanity 
has never lived, and never will be able to live ; 
without which no human being has lived or can 
lire, if he would live as man should live, — a rea- 
sonable life. The power of the doctrine of Jesus is 
not in its explanation of the meaning of life, but in 
the rules that it gives for the conduct of life. The 
metaphysical doctrine of Jesus is not new ; it is 
that eternal doctrine of humanity inscribed in all the 
hearts of men, and preached by all the prophets of 
all the ages. The power of the doctrine of Jesus is 
in the application of this metaphysical doctrine to 
life. 

The metaphysical basis of the ancient doctrine 
of the Hebrews, which enjoined love to God and 
men, is identical with the metaphysical basis of 
the doctrine of Jesus. But the application of this 
doctrine to life, as expounded by Moses, was very 
different from the teachings of Jesus. The He- 
brews, in applying the Mosaic law to life, were 
obliged to fulfil six hundred and thirteen command- 
ments, many of which were absurd and cruel, and 
yet all were based upon the authority of the Scrip- 
tures. The doctrine of life, as given by Jesus upon 
the same metaphysical basis, is expressed in five 
reasonable and beneficent commandments, having 
an obvious and justifiable meaning, and embracing 
within their restrictions the whole of human life. 
A Jew, a disciple of Confucius, a Buddhist, or a 



MY RELIGION. 241 

Mohammedan, who sincerely doubts the truth of 
his own religion, cannot refuse to accept the 
doctrine of Jesus ; much less, then, can this doc- 
trine be rejected by the Christian world of to-day, 
which is now living without any moral law. The 
doctrine of Jesus cannot interfere in any wa}^ with 
the manner in which men of to-day regard the 
world ; it is, to begin with, in harmony with their 
metaphysics, but it gives them what they have not 
now, what is indispensable to their existence, and 
what they all seek, — it offers them a way of life ; 
not an unknown way, but a way already explored 
and familiar to all. 

Let us suppose that j'ou are a sincere Christian, 
it matters not of what confession. You believe in the 
creation of the world, in the Trinity, in the fall and 
redemption of man, in the sacraments, in prayer, 
in the Church. The doctrine of Jesus is not opposed 
to your dogmatic belief, and is absolutely in harmony 
with your theory of the origin of the universe ; and 
it offers you something that you do not possess. 
While you retain 3'our present religion 3'ou feel that 
your own life and the life of the world is full of evil 
that you know not how to remedy. The doctrine of 
Jesus (which should be binding upon you since it is 
the doctrine of your own God) offers you simple and 
practical rules which will surelj' deliver you, you 
and your fellows, from the evils with which you are 
tormented. 

Believe, if you will, in paradise, in hell, in the 
pope, in the Church, in the sacraments, in the re- 



242 MY RELIGION. 

demption ; pray according to the dictates of your 
faith, attend upon your deyotions, sing your hymns, 
— but all this will not prevent 3'ou from practising 
the five commandments given "by Jesus for your wel- 
fare : Be not angry ; Do not commit adultery ; 
Take no oaths ; Resist not evil ; Do not make war. 
It may happen that you will break one of these 
rules ; you will perhaps yield to temptation, and 
violate one of them, just as you violate the rules of 
your present religion, or the articles of the civil 
code, or the laws of custom. In the same waj' you 
may, perhaps, in moments of temptation, fail of 
observing all the commandments of Jesus. But, in 
that case, do not calmly sit down as you do now, 
and so organize your existence as to render it a task 
of extreme difficulty not to be angry, not to commit 
adultery, not to take oaths, not to resist evil, not to 
make war ; organize rather an existence which shall 
render the doing of all these things as difficult as the 
non-performance of them is now laborious. You 
cannot refuse to recognize the validity of these rules, 
for the}' are the commandments of the God whom 
you pretend to worship. 

Let us suppose that you are an unbeliever, a phi- 
losopher, it matters not of what special school. Ycu 
affirm that the progress of the world is in accord- 
ance with a law that you have discovered. The 
doctrine of Jesus does not oppose your views ; it is 
in harmony with the* law that you have discovered. 
But, aside from this law, in pursuance of which the 
world will in the com'se of a thousand years reach a 



MT RELIGIcm. 243 

state of felicity, there is still yonr own personal life 
to be considered. This life yon can use by living in 
conformity to reason, or yon can waste it by living 
in opposition to reason, and yon have now for its 
guidance no rule whatever, except the decrees drawn 
up by men whom you do not esteem, and enforced 
b}' the police. The doctrine of Jesus offers you 
rules which are assuredly in accord with your law of 
" altruism," which is nothing but a feeble paraphi^ase 
of this same doctrine of Jesus. 

Let us suppose that you are an average man, half 
sceptic, half believer, one who has no time to ana- 
lyze the meaning of human life, and one therefore 
who has no determinate theory of existence. You 
live as lives the rest of the world about you. The doc- 
trine of Jesus is not at all contrary to your condition. 
You are incapable of reason, of verifying the truths 
of the doctrines that are taught you ; it is easier for 
you to do as others do. But however modest may 
be your estimate of your powers of reason, you know 
that you have within you a judge that sometimes ap- 
proves 3'our acts and sometimes condemns them. 
However modest j^our social position, there are occa- 
sions when you are bound to reflect and ask 3'our- 
self, " Shall I follow the example of the rest of the 
world, or shall I act in accordance with mj' own 
judgment? " It is precisely on these occasions when 
you are called upon to solve some problem with re- 
gard to the conduct of life, that the commandments 
of Jesus appeal to you in all their efficiency. The 
commandments of Jesus will surely respond to your 



244 MY RELIGION. 

inquiry, because they apply to your whole existence. 
The response will be in accord with your reason and 
your conscience. If you are nearer to faith than to 
unbelief, you will, in following these commandments, 
act in harmony with the will of God. If you are 
nearer to scepticism than to belief, you will, in fol- 
lowing the doctrine of Jesus, govern your actions by 
the laws of reason, for the commandments of Jesus 
make manifest their own meaning, and their own 
justification. 

''''Now is the judgment oftliis icoi'M : noio shall the 
prince of this world be cast out." (John xii. 31.) 

" TJiese things have I spoken unto you, that in me 
ye may have peace. In the icorld ye have tribu- 
lation : but be of good cheer; I have overcome the 
world." (John xvi. 33.) 

The world, that is, the evil in the world, is over- 
come. If evil still exists in the world, it exists only 
through the influence of inertia ; it no longer con- 
tains the principle of vitality. For those wlio have 
faith in the commandments of Jesus, it does not 
• exist at all. It is vanquished by an awakened con- 
science, by the elevation of the son of man. A train 
that has been put in motion continues to move in the 
direction in which it was started ; but the time comes 
when the intelligent effort of a controlling hand is 
made manifest, and the movement is reversed. 

"Ye are of God, and have overcome them because 
greater is he that is icithin you than he that is in the 
world." (1 John v. 4.) 

The faith that triumphs over the doctrines of the 
world is faith in the doctrine of Jesus. 



CHAPTER XII. 

I BELIEVE in the doctrine of Jesus, and this is 
my religion : — 

I believe that nothing but the fulfilment of the 
doctrine of Jesus can give true happiness to 
men. I believe that the fulfilment of this doc- 
trine is possible, easy, and pleasant. I believe 
that although none other follows this doctrine, 
and I alone am left to practise it, I cannot 
refuse to obej' it, if I would save my life from the 
certainty of eternal loss ; just as a man in a burn- 
ing house if he find a door of safety, must go out, 
so I must avail myself of the way to salvation. I 
believe that my life according to the doctrine of the 
world has been a torment, and that a life according 
to the doctrine of Jesus can alone give me in this 
world the happiness for which I was destined by the 
Father of Life. I believe that this doctrine is 
essential to the welfare of humanity, will save me 
from the certainty of eternal loss, and will give me 
in this world the greatest possible sum of happiness. 
BeUeving thus, I am obliged to practise its com- 
mandments. 

" The lavj icas given by Moses; grace and truth 
came by Jesus Christ." (John i. 17.) 

The doctrine of Jesus is a doctrine of grace and 



246 MY RELIGION. 

ti'uth. Once I knew not grace and knew not truth. 
Mistaking evil for good, I fell into evil, and I 
doubted the righteousness of my tendency toward 
good. I understand and believe now that the good 
toward which I was attracted is the will of the 
Father, the essence of life. 

Jesus has told us to live in pursuit of the good, 
and to beware of snares and temptations (a-KavSaXov) 
which, by enticing us with the semblance of good, 
draw us away from true goodness, and lead us into 
evil. He has taught us that our welfare is to be 
sought in fellowship with all men ; that evil is a 
violation of fellowship with the son of man, and 
that we must not deprive ourselves of the welfare 
to be had by obedience to his doctrme. 

Jesus has demonstrated that fellowship with the 
son of man, the love of men for one another, is not 
merely an ideal after which men are to strive ; he 
has shown us that this love and this fellowship are 
natural attributes of men in tlieir normal condition, 
the condition into which children are born, the con- 
dition in which all men would live if they were not 
drawn aside by error, illusions, and temptations. 

In his commandments, Jesus has enumerated 
clearl}' and unmistakably the temptations that inter- 
fere with this natural condition of love and fellow- 
ship and render it a prey to evil. The command- 
ments of Jesus offer the remedies by which I must 
save myself from the temptations that have de- 
prived me of happiness ; and so I am forced to 
believe that these commandments are true. Happi- 



3IT RELIGIOX. 247 

11 ess was within mv grasp and I destroyed it. In 
his commandments Jesus has sliown me the tempta- 
tions that lead to the destruction of happiness. I 
can no longer work for the destruction of my hap- 
piness, and in this determination, and in this alone, 
is the substance of my religion. 

Jesus has shown me that the first temptation 
destructive of happiness is enmity toward men, 
anger against them. I cannot refuse to believe 
this, and so I cannot willingly remain at enmity 
with others. I cannot, as I could once, foster 
anger, be proud of it, fan into a flame, justify it, 
regarding myself as an intelligent and superior man 
and others as useless and foolish people. Now, 
when I give up to anger, I can only realize that I 
alone am guilty, and seek to make peace with those 
who have aught against me. 

But this is not all. "While I now see that anger 
is an abnormal, pernicious, and morbid state, I also 
perceive the temptation that led me into it. The 
temptation was in separating myself from my 
fellows, recognizing only a few of them as my 
equals, and regarding all the others as persons of 
no account {rekim) or as uncultivated animals 
(fools) . I see now that this wilful separation from 
other men, this judgment of rctca or fool passed 
upon others, was the principal source of my dis- 
agreements. In looking over my past life I saw 
that I had rarely permitted my anger to rise against 
those wliom I considered as my equals, whom I 
seldom abused. But the least disagreeable action 



248 MY RELIGION. 

on the part of one whom I considered an inferior 
inflamed my anger and led me to abusive words or 
actions, and the more superior I felt myself to be, 
the less careful I was of my temper ; sometimes the 
mere supposition that a man was of a lower social 
position than myself was enough to provoke me to 
an outrageous manner. 

I understand now that he alone is above others 
who is humble with others and makes himself the 
servant of all. I understand now why those that 
are great in the sight of men are an abomination to 
God, who has declared woe upon the rich and 
mighty and invoked blessedness upon the poor and 
humble. Now I understand this truth, I have faith 
in it, and this faith has transformed my perception 
of what is right and important, and what is wrong 
and despicable. Everything that once seemed to 
me right and important, such as honors, glory, civ- 
ilization, wealth, the complications and refinements 
of existence, luxury, rich food, fine clothing, eti- 
quette, have become for me wi'ong and despicable. 
Evervthino; that formerlv seemed to me wrono; and 
despicable, such as rusticity, obscurity, poverty, 
austerity, simplicity of surroundings, of food, of 
clothing, of manners, all have now become right 
and important to me. And so although I may at 
times give myself up to anger and abuse another, I 
cannot deliberately yield to wrath and so deprive 
myself of the true source of happiness, — fellowship 
and love ; for it is possible that a man should lay a 
snare for his own feet and so be lost. Now, I can 



MY religion: 249 

no longer give my support to anything that lifts me 
above or separates me from others. I cannot, as I 
once did, recognize in myself or others titles or 
ranks or qualities aside from the title and quality 
of manhood. I can no longer seek for fame and 
glory ; I can no longer cultivate a system of in- 
struction which separates me from men. I cannot 
in my surroundings, my food, my clothing, my 
manners, strive for what not only separates me 
from others but renders me a reproach to the 
majority of mankind. 

Jesus showed me another temptation destructive of 
happiness, that is, debaucher}', the desire to possess 
another woman than her to whom I am united. 
I can no longer, as I did once, consider my sensu- 
ality as a sublime trait of human nature. I can no 
longer justify it by my love for the beautiful, or my 
amorousness, or the faults of my companion. At 
the first inclination toward debauchery I cannot fail 
to recognize that I am in a morbid and abnormal 
state, and to seek to rid myself of the besetting sin. 

Knowing that debauchery is an evil, I also know 
its cause, and can thus evade it. I know now that 
the principal cause of this temptation is not the 
necessity for the sexual relation, but the abandon- 
ment of wives by their husbands, and of husbands 
by their wives. I know now that a man who for- 
sakes a woman, or a woman who forsakes a man, 
when the two have once been united, is guilty of the 
divorce which Jesus forbade, because men and 
women abandoned by their first companions are the 
original cause of all the debauchery in the world. 



250 MY RELIGION. 

In seeking to discover the influences that led to 
debauchery, I found one to be a barbarous physical 
and intellectual education that developed the erotic 
passion which the world endeavors to justify by the 
most subtile arguments. But the principal influence 
I found to be the abandonment of the woman to 
whom I had first been united, and the situation of 
the abandoned women around me. The principal 
source of temptation was not in carnal desires, but 
in the fact that those desires were not satisfied in 
the men and women by whom I was surrounded. I 
now understand the words of Jesus when he says : — 

" He ivliich made them from the heginning., made 
them male and female. . . . So that they are no more 
tivain, but one flesh. WJiat, therefore, God hath 
joined together, let not man put asunder." (Matt. 
xix. 4-6.) 

I understand now that monogamy- is the natural 
law of humanit}^, which cannot with impunity be 
violated. I now understand perfectly the words de- 
claring that the man or woman who separates from 
a companion to seek another, forces the forsaken 
one to resort to debauchery, and thus introduces 
into the world an evil that returns upon those who 
cause it. 

This I believe ; and the faith I now have has 
ti^ansformed my opinions with regard to the right 
and important, and the wrong and despicable, things 
of life. TThat once seemed to me the most delight- 
ful existence in the world, an existence made up of 
dainty, aesthetic pleasures and passions, is now re- 



MT RELIGION-. 251 

volting to me. And a life of simplicity and indi- 
gence, which moderates the sexual desires, now 
seems to me good. The human institution of mar- 
riage, which gives a nominal sanction to the union 
of man and woman, I regard as of less grave impor- 
tance than that the union, when accomplished, should 
be regarded as the will of God, and never be broken. 
Now, when in moments of weakness I yield to the 
promptings of desire, I know the snare that would 
deliver me into evil, and so I cannot deliberately 
plan my method of existence as formerly I was accus- 
tomed to do. I no longer habitually cherish physical 
sloth and luxury, which excite to excessive sensu- 
ality. I can no longer pursue amusements which 
are oil to the fire of amorous sensuality, — the read- 
ing of romances and the most of poetry, listening to 
music, attendance at theatres and balls, — amuse- 
ments that once seemed to me elevated and refining, 
but which I now see to be injurious. I can no 
longer abandon the woman with whom I have been 
united, for I know that by forsaking her, I set a 
snare for myself, for her, and for others. I can no 
longer encourage the gross and idle existence of 
others. I can no longer encourage or take part in 
licentious pastimes, romantic literature, plays, 
operas, balls, which are so many snares for myself 
and for others. I cannot favor the celibacy of per- 
sons fitted for the marriage relation. I cannot en- 
courage the separation of wives from their husbands. 
I cannot make any distinction between unions that 
are called by the name of marriage, and those that 



252 MY RELIGION. 

are denied this name. I am obliged to consider as 
sacred and absolute the sole and unique union by 
which man is once for all indissolubly bound to the 
first woman with whom he has been united. 

Jesus has shown me that the third temptation 
destructive to true happiness is the oath. I am 
obliged to believe his words ; consequently, I cannot, 
as I once did, bind myself by oath to serve any one 
for any purpose, and I can no longer, as I did for- 
merly, justify myself for having taken an oath be- 
cause " it would harm no one," because everybody 
did the same, because it is necessary for the State, 
because the consequences might be bad for me or 
for some one else if I refuse to submit to this exac- 
tion. I know now that it is an evil for myself and 
for others, and I cannot conform to it. 

Nor is this all. I now know the snare that led me 
into evil, and I can no longer act as an accomplice. 
I know that the snare is in the use of God's name to 
sanction an imposture, and that the imposture consists 
in promising in advance to obey the commands of 
one man, or of man^^ men, while I ought to obey the 
commands of God alone. I know now that evils the 
most terrible of all in their result — war, imprison- 
ments, capital punishment — exist only because of 
the oath, in virtue of which men make themselves 
instruments of evil, and believe that they free them- 
selves from all responsibility. As I think now of 
the many evils that have impelled me to hostility 
and hatred, I see that they all originated with the 
the oath, the engagement to submit to the will of 



MT religion: 253 

others. I understand now the meaning of the 
words : — 

'' But let your speech 6e, I"ea, yea; nay, nay; and 
whatsoever is more than these is of evil.'' (Matt. v. 
37.) 

Understanding this, I am convinced that the oath 
is destructive of my true welfare and of that of 
others, and this belief changes my estimate of right 
and wrong, of the important and despicable. What 
once seemed to me right and important, — the prom- 
ise of fidelity to the government supported by the 
oath, the exacting of oaths from others, and all acts 
contrary to conscience, done because of the oath, 
now seem to me wrong and despicable. Therefore 
I can no longer evade the commandment of Jesus 
forbidding the oath, I can no longer bind myself by 
oath to any one, I cannot exact an oath from an- 
other, I cannot encourage men to take an oath, or 
to cause others to take an oath ; nor can I regard the 
oath as necessar}', important, or even inoffensive. 

Jesus has shown me that the fourth temptation 
destructive to my happiness is the resort to violence 
for the resistance of evil. I am obliged to believe 
that this is an evil for m3'self and for others ; con- 
sequently, I cannot, as I did once, deliberately resort 
to violence, and seek to justify my action with the 
pretext that it is indispensable for the defence of 
my person and propert}', or of the persons and prop- 
erty of others. I can no louger yield to the first 
impulse to resort to violence ; I am obliged to re- 
nounce it, and to abstain from it altogether. 



254 MY RELIGION. 

But this is not all. I understand now the snare 
that caused me to fall into this evil. I know now 
that the snare consisted in the erroneous belief that 
my life could be made secure by violence, by the 
defence of my person and property against the 
encroachments of others. I know now that a great 
portion of the evils that afflict mankind are due to 
this, — that men, instead of giving their work for 
others, deprive themselves completely of the privi- 
lege of work, and forcibly appropriate the labor of 
their fellows. Every one regards a resort to vio- 
lence as the best possible security for life and for 
property, and I now see that a great portion of the 
evil that I did myself, and saw others do, resulted 
from this practice. I understood now the meaning 
of the words : — 

'-'• Not to he ministered unto, but to minister." 
''''The laborer is worthy of his food." 

I believe now that my true welfare, and that of 
others, is possible only when I labor not for myself, 
but for another, and that I must not refuse to labor 
for another, but to give with joy that of which he 
has need. This faith has changed my estimate of 
what is right and important, and wrong and despi- 
cable. What once seemed to me right and impor- 
tant — riches, proprietary rights, the point of honor, 
the maintenance of personal dignity and personal 
privileges — have now become to me wrong and 
despicable. Labor for others, poverty, hunulit}^ 
the renunciation of property and of personal privi- 
leges, have become in my eyes right and important. 



MT RELIGION. 255 

TVTien, now, in a moment of forgetfulness, I yield 
to the impulse to resort to violence, for the defence 
of- m}^ person or propert}^ or of the persons or prop- 
erty of others, I can no longer deliberately make 
use of this snare for m}' own destruction and the 
destruction of others. I can no longer acquire prop- 
erty. I can no longer resort to force in any form 
for my own defence or the defence of another. I 
can no longer co-operate with any power whose 
object is the defence of men and their propertj' by 
violence. I can no longer act in a judicial capacity, 
or clothe myself with any authority, or take part in 
the exercise of any jurisdiction whatever. I can no 
longer encourage others in the support of tribunals, 
or in the exercise of authoritative administration. 

Jesus has shown me that the fifth temptation 
that deprives me of well-being, is the distinction 
that we make between compatriots and foreigners. 
I must believe this ; consequently, if, in a moment 
of forgetfulness, I have a feeling of hostilitj' toward 
a man of another nationality, I am obliged, in 
moments of reflection, to regard this feeling as 
wrong. I can no longer, as I did formerly, justify 
my hostility by the superiority of mj^ own people 
over others, or by the ignorance, the cruelty, or the 
barbarism of another race. I can no longer refrain 
from striving to be even more friendh' with a for- 
eigner than with one of my own countrymen. 

I know now that the distinction I once made 
between my own people and those of other countries 
is destructive of my welfare ; but, more than this. 



256 MY RELIGION. 

I now know the snare that led me into this evil, and 
I can no longer, as I did once, walk deliberately 
and calmly into this snare. I know now that this 
snare consists in the erroneous belief that my wel- 
fare is dependent only upon the welfare of my 
counti'ymen, and not upon the welfare of all man- 
kind. I know now that my fellowship with others 
cannot be shut off by a frontier, or by a government 
decree which decides that I belong to some particu- 
lar political organization. I know now that all men 
are everywhere brothers and equals. When I think 
now of all the evil that I have done, that I have 
endured, and that I have seen about me, arising 
from national enmities, I see clearly that it is all 
due to that gross imposture called patriotism, — love 
for one's native land. TThen I think now of my 
education, I see how these hateful feelings were 
grafted into my mind. I understand now the mean- 
ing of the words : — 

"Xoi'e your enemies, and pray for them that perse- 
cute you; that ye may he sons of your Father that is 
in heaven : for he mdketh his sun to rise on the evil 
and the good, and sendeth rain on the just and the 
unjust." 

I understand now that true welfare is possible for 
me onl}' on condition that I recognize my fellowship 
with the whole world. I believe this, and the beUef 
has changed my estimate of what is right and wrong, 
important and despicable. What once seemed to 
me right and important — love of counti-y, love for 
those of my own race, for the organization called 



MY RELIGION. 257 

the State, services rendered at the expense of the 
welfare of other men, military exploits — now seem 
to me detestable and pitiable. What once seemed 
to me shameful and wrong — renunciation of nation- 
ality, and the cultivation of cosmopolitanism — now 
seem to me right and important. When, now, in a 
moment of forgetfulness, I sustain a Russian in 
preference to a foreigner, and desire the success of 
Russia or of the Russian people, I can no longer in 
lucid moments allow myself to be controlled by 
illusions so destructive to my welfare and the wel- 
fare of others. I can no longer recognize states or 
peoples ; I can no longer take part in any difference 
between peoples or states, or any discussion be- 
tween them either verbal or written, much less in 
any service in behalf of any particular state. 1 can 
no longer co-operate with measures maintained by 
divisions between states, — the collection of custom 
duties, taxes, the manufacture of arms and projec- 
tiles, or any act favoring armaments, military ser- 
vice, and, for a stronger reason, wars, — neither 
can I encourage others to take any part in them. 

I understand in what my true welfare consists, I 
have faith in that, and consequently I cannot do 
what would inevitably be destructive of that welfare. 
I not only have faith that I ought to live thus, but I 
have faith that if I live thus, and only thus, my life 
will attain its only possible meaning, and be reason- 
able, pleasant, and indestructible by death. I 
believe that my reasonable life, the light I bear with 
me, was given to me only that it might shine before 



258 3IY RELIGION. 

men, not in words only, but in good deeds, that 
men may thereby glorify the Father. I beheve that 
my life and my consciousness of truth is the talent 
confided to me for a good purpose, and that this 
talent fulfils its mission only when it is of use to 
others. I believe that I am a Niuevite with regard 
to other Jonahs from whom I have learned and shall 
learn of the truth ; but that I am a Jonah in regard 
to other Ninevites to whom I am bound to transmit 
the truth. I believe that the only meaning of m}' 
life is to be attained by living in accordance with 
the light that is within me, and that I must allow 
this light to shine forth to be seen of all men. This 
faith gives me renewed strength to fulfil the doctrine 
of Jesus, and to overcome the obstacles which still 
arise in my pathway. All that once caused me to 
doubt the possibility of practising the doctrine of 
Jesus, everything that once turned me aside, the 
possibility of privations, and of suffering, and death, 
inflicted by those who know not the doctrine of 
Jesus, now confirm its truth and draw me into its 
service. Jesus said, " When you have lifted up the 
son of man., then shall you know that I am /ie," — 
then shall you be drawn into my service, — and I 
feel that I am irresistibly drawn to him by the influ- 
ence of his doctrine. " Tlie truth," he says again, 
" TJie truth shall maJce you free," and I know that I 
am in perfect liberty. 

I once thought that if a foreign invasion occurred, 
or even if evil-minded persons attacked me, and I did 
not defend myself, I should be robbed and beaten and 



31 Y RELIGIOX. 259 

tortured and killed with those whom I felt bound to 
protect, and this possibility troubled me. But this 
that once troubled me now seems desirable and in 
conformity with the truth. I know now that the 
foreign enemy and the malefactors or brigands are 
all men like myself ; that, like myself, they love 
good and hate evil ; that they live as I live, on the 
borders of death ; and that, with me, they seek for 
salvation, and will find it in the doctrine of Jesus. 
The evil that they do to me will be evil to them, and 
so can be nothing but good for me. But if truth is 
unknown to them, and they do evil thinking that 
they do good, I, who know the truth, am bound to 
reveal it to them, and this I can do only by refusing 
to ^participate in evil, and thereby confessing the 
truth by my example. 

" But hither come the enemy, — Germans, Turks, 
savages ; if you do not make war on them, the}' will 
exterminate you ! " They will do nothing of the 
sort. If there were a society of Christian men that 
did evil to none and gave of their labor for the 
good of others, such a society would have no ene- 
mies to kill or to torture them. The foreigners 
would take only what the members of this society 
voluntarih^ gave, making no distinction between 
Russians, or Turks, or Germans. But when Chris- 
tians live in the midst of a non-Christian society 
which defends itself by force of arm, and calls upon 
the Christians to join in waging war, then the Chris- 
tians have an opportunity for revealing the truth to 
them who know it not. A Christian knowiuo- the 



260 MY RELIGION. 

truth bears witness of the truth before others, and 
this testimony can be made manifest only by ex- 
ample. He must renounce war and do good to 
all men, whether they are foreigners or compatriots. 

' ' But there are wicked men among compatriots ; 
they will attack a Christian, and if the latter do not 
defend himself, will pillage and massacre him and 
his family." No ; they will not do so. If all the 
members of this famil}^ are Christians, and conse- 
quently hold their lives only for the service of 
others', no man will be found insane enough to 
deprive such people of the necessaries of life or to 
kill them. The famous Maclay lived among the 
most bloodthirsty of savages ; they did not kill 
him, they reverenced him and followed his teach- 
ings, simply because he did not fear them, exacted 
nothing from them, and treated them always with 
kindness. 

" But what if a Christian lives in a non-Christian 
family, accustomed to defend itself and its property 
by a resort to violence, and is called upon to take 
part in measures of defence ? " This solicitation is 
simply an appeal to the Christian to fulfil the decrees 
of truth. A Christian knows the truth only that he 
may show it to others, more especially to his neigh- 
bors and to tliose who are bound to him b3' ties of 
blood and friendship, and a Christian can show the 
ti'uth onh' by refusing to join in the errors of others, 
by taking part neither with aggressors or defenders, 
but by abandoning all that he has to those who will 
take it from him, thus showing by his acts that he 



MY RELIGION. 261 

has need of nothing save the fulfilment of the will of 
God, and that he fears nothing except disobedience 
to that will. 

"But how, if the government will not permit a 
member of the society over which it has sway, to 
refuse to recognize the fundamental principles of 
governmental order or to decline to fulfil the duties 
of a citizen ? The government exacts from a Chris- 
tian the oath, jury service, military service, and his 
refusal to conform to these demands may be punished 
by exile, imprisonment, and even by death." 'Then, 
once more, the exactions of those in authority are 
only an appeal to the Christian to manifest the truth 
that is in him. The exactions of those in authority 
are to a Christian the exactions of those who do 
not know the truth. Consequently, a Christian 
who knows the truth must bear witness of the truth 
to those who know it not. Exile and imprisonment 
and death afford to the Christian the possibility of 
bearing witness of the truth, not in words, but in 
acts. Violence, war, brigandage, executions, are 
not accomplished through the forces of unconscious 
nature ; they are accomplished by men who are 
blinded, and do not know the truth. Consequently, 
the more evil these men do to Christians, the further 
the}^ are from the truth, the more unhappy they are, 
and the more necessary it is that they should have 
knowledge of the truth. Now a Christian cannot 
make known his knowledge of truth except by ab- 
staining from the errors that lead men into evil ; he 
must render good for evil. This is the life-work of 



262 MY RELIGION. 

a Christian, and if it is accomplished, death cannot 
harm him, for the meaning of his Ufe can never be 
destroyed. 

Men are united by error into a compact mass. 
The prevailing power of evil is the cohesive force 
tliat binds them together. The reasonable activity 
of humanity is to destroy the cohesive power of evil. 
Revolutions are attempts to shatter the power of 
evil by violence. Men think that by hammering 
upon the mass they will be able to break it in frag- 
ments, but they only make it more dense and im- 
permeable than it was before. External violence is 
of no avail. The disruptive movement must come 
from within when molecule releases its hold upon 
molecule and the whole mass falls into disintegra- 
tion. Error is the force that binds men together ; 
truth alone can set them free. Now truth is truth 
only when it is in action, and then only can it be 
transmitted from man to man. Onl}' truth in action, 
by introducing light into the conscience of each 
individual, can dissolve the homogeneity of error, 
and detach men one by one from its bonds. 

This work has been going on for eighteen hundred 
3'ears. It began when the commandments of Jesus 
were first given to humanity, and it will not cease 
till, as Jesus said, '•'• all things he accomplished''^ 
(Matt. V. 18). The Church that sought to detach 
men from error and to weld them together again 
by the solemn affirmation that it alone was the truth, 
has long since fallen to decay. But the Church 
composed of men united, not by promises or sacra- 



MY RELIGIOK. 263 

ments, but by deeds of truth and love, has always 
lived and will live forever. Now, as eighteen hun- 
dred years ago, this Church is made up not of those 
who say " Lord^ Lorcl^'^ and bring forth iniquity, but 
of those who hear the words of truth and reveal 
them in their lives. The members of this Church 
know that life is to them a blessing as long as they 
maintain fraternity with others and dwell in the 
fellowship of the son of man ; and that the blessing 
will be lost only to those who do not obey the com- 
mandments of Jesus. And so the members of this 
Church practise the commandments of Jesus and 
thereby teach them to others. Whether this Church 
be in numbers little or great, it is, nevertheless, the 
Church that shall never perish, the Church that shall 
finally unite within its bonds the hearts of all man- 
kind. 

" Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father's good 
jpurpose to give you the kingdom,'^ 



APPENDIX. 



WHEN Count Tolstoi speaks of the Church and 
its dogmas, he refers especially, of course, 
to the Orthodox Greek Church, the national church 
of Russia. The following summary of the teachings 
of the Orthodox Greek Church is taken from Prof. 
T. M. Lindsay's article in the Encydopcedia Brit- 
tanica, ninth edition, volume xi. p. 158. Variations 
from the Roman Catholic doctrine are indicated by 
small capitals, and variations from Protestant doc- 
trine by italics. [Tr.] 

"Christianity is a divine revelation, communi- 
cated to mankind through Christ ; its saving truths 
are to be learned from the Bible cmd tradition^ the 
former having been written, and the latter main- 
tained uncorrupted through the influence of the Holy 
Spirit; the interpretation of the Bible belongs to the 
Church, which is taught by the Holy Spirit, but every 
believer may read the Scriptures. 

"According to the Christian revelation, God is a 
trinity, that is, the divine essence exists in three 
persons, perfectly equal in nature and dignity, the 
Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost ; the Holy 
Ghost proceeds from the Father only. Besides 



266 APPEN'DIX. 

the triune God, there is no other object of divine 
worship, hut homage (vTrepSovXta) may he paid to the 
Virgin 3Iary, and reverence {hovXia) to the saints 
and to their pictures and relics. 

" Man is born with a corrupt bias, which was not 
his at creation ; the first man, when created, pos- 
sessed IMJIOKTALITT, PERFECT WISDOM, AND A WILL 

REGULATED BY REASON. Thi'ough the first sin, Adam 
and his posterity lost rMMORTALirr, and his will 
RECErv'ED A BIAS TOWARDS EVIL. In this natural 
state, man, who, even before he actually sins, is a 
sinner before God by original or inherited sin, com- 
mits manifold actual transgressions ; hut he is not 
absolutely tuithout power ofioill toicards good^ and is 
not always doing evil. 

*' Christ, the Son of God, became man in two 
natures, which internally and inseparably united 
make One Person, and, according to the eternal 
purpose of God, has obtained for man reconcilia- 
tion with God and eternal life, inasmuch as he, by 
his vicarious death has made satisfaction to God for 
the world's sins ; and this satisfaction was per- 
fectly COJIMENSURATE WITH THE SINS OF THE WORLD. 

Man is made partaker of reconciliation in spiritual 
regeneration, which he attains to, being led and 
kept by the Holy Ghost. This divine help is offered 
to all men icithout distinction, and may he rejected. 
In order to attain to salvation, man is justified, and, 
when so justified, can do no more than the com- 
jiANDs OF God. He may fall from this state of 
grace thi'ough mortal sin. 



APPENDIX. 267 

"Regeneration is offered by the word of God 
and in the sacraments, luhich, under visible sigjis, 
communicate God's invisible grace to Christians ivhen 
administered cum intentione. There are seven mys- 
teries or sacraments. Baptism entirely destroys 
original sin. In the Eucharist, the true body and 
blood of Christ are substantially present^ and the 
elements are changed into the substance of Christ, 
whose body and blood are corporecdly partaken of by 
communicants. All Christians should receive the 
bread and the wine. The Eucharist is cdso an 
expiatory sacrifice. The new birth when lost may 
be restored through repentance, which is not merely 
(1) sincere sorrow, but also (2) confession of each 
individucd sin to the priest, and (3) the discharge of 
penances imposed by the p>7'iest for the removed of the 
temporcd punishment, which may have been imposed 
by God and the Church. Penance, accompanied by 
the judicial absolution of the priest, makes a true 
sacrament. 

"The Church of Christ is the fellowship of all 

THOSE WHO ACCEPT AND PROFESS ALL THE ARTICLES 
OF FAITH TRANSMITTED BY THE APOSTLES, AND AP- 
PROVED BY General Synods. Without this visible 
Church there is no salvation. It is under the abiding 
influence of the Holy Ghost, and therefore cannot err 
in matters of faith. Specially appointed persons are 
necessary in the service of the Church, and they 
form a threefold order, distinct jure divino from 
other Christians, of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons. 
The four Patriarchs of equal dignity have the 



268 APPENDIX. 

HIGHEST RANK AMONG THE BISHOPS, AND THE BISH- 
OPS united in a General Council represent the Church 
and infallibly decide, under the guidance of the Holy 
Ghost, all matters of faith and ecclesiastical life. 
All ministers of Christ must be regularly called and 
appointed to their office, and are consecrated by the 
sacrament of orders. Bishops must be unmarried, 
and PRIESTS and deacons siust not contract a 
SECOND marriage. To all priests in common be- 
longs, besides the preaching of the word, the admin- 
isti'ation of the six sacraments, — baptism, confir- 
mation, PENANCE, EUCHARIST, MATRIMONY, UNCTION 

OF THE SICK. The bisho])s alone can administer the 
sacrament of orders. 

' ' Ecclesiastical ceremonies are paH of the divine 
service; most of them have apostolic origin; and 
those connected ivith the sacrament must not be omitted 
by priests under pain of mortal sin." 



IlfDEX. 



Abraham, 165. 

Adam, fall of, 118, 122. 

Age, consummation of, 139, 

152. 
Amusements, harmful, 105 ; 

maintained by coercion, 106. 
Anger, the commandment 

against, 70 et seq.; destruc- 
tive of happiness, 247 ; 

temptations to, 247. 
o.vl(TTr\p.i, meaning of, 146. 
Army, the Christophile, 15. 
Art has forsaken the Church, 

224. 
aiiferstehn, meaning of, 146. 
Aurelius, Marcus, 126. 
Average man, the, and the 

problem of existence, 229. 
Belief, if true, always brings 

forth works, 160 et seq. 
Believers, and the problem of 

existence, 228. 
Berditchef , circus at, 135, 157. 
Bible, 17. 
Biblical references. — O. T. : 

Gen. (iii. 22) 149; Exod. (iii. 

6) 144; Levit. (xix. 12) 86, 

(xix. 17, 18) 94; Deut. (xiii. 

21, 34) 86, (xxiv. 1) 77, (xxx. 

15-19) 150, (xxxii. 39, 40) 



149; Judges (ix. 4) 76; Sam. 
(I. viii.-xii.) 18; Isaiah (Ixi. 
1,2) 110. N. T.: Matt. (iv. 
1-11) 178, (iv. 37) 253, (v.) 
17, (v., vi., vii.) 5, (v. 17- 

20) 51, 52, 53, (v. 18) 262, 
(v. 19) 70, (v. 21-26) 70, 76, 
(v. 21-48) 69, (v. 22-44) 109, 
(v. 27-32) 77, (v. 28-32) 109, 
(v. 32) 79, 81, (V. 33-37) 86, 

91, (v. 34-37) 109, (v. 36) 89, 
(v. 38, 39) 7, 8, (v. 38-42) 

92, 93, 110, (v. 40) 26, (v. 43- 
48) 95, 110, (v. 44) 256, (vii. 
1) 23, (vii. 12) 57, (x.lO) 200, 
254, (xi. 30) 14, (xii. 16-21) 

138, (xii. 31) 217, (xii. 35- 
40) 139, (xii. 40) 145, (xiii. 
52) 02, (xiv. 2) 146, (xvi. 13- 

21) 145, (xvi. 21) 145, (xvii. 
23) 145, (xix.) 79, (xix. 4-6) 
250, (xix. 4-9) 80, (xix. 9) 
81, 84, (xix. 17) 151, (xx. 1- 
16) 167, 168, (xx. 19) 145, 
(xx. 20-28) 166, (xxi. 33-42) 

139, (xxii. 44) 98, (xxiii. 13- 
35) 217, (xxv. 14-46) 142, 
(xxvi. 32) 145, (xxvii. 42) 
163;Mark(viii. 31) 145, (ix. 
31) 145, (X. 5-12) 79, (x. 28- 



270 



IXDEX. 



30) 180, (x. 3i) lio, (x. 35- 
48) 166, (x. 45) 202, 254, (xii. 
21-24) 144, (xii. 26, 27) 144, 
(xii. 36) 98, (xiv. 25) 145, 
(XV. 32) laS; Luke (i. 71, 
74) 98, (iv. 1-13) 178, (iv. 18, 
19, 21) 111, (vi. 37) 23, (vi. 
37-49) 24, (ix. 22) 145, (x. 5, 
7) 200, (x. 26) 61, (x. 28) 151, 
(x. 29) 98, (xi. 30) 145, (xi. 
35) 125, 216, (xii. 22-27) 137, 
(xii. 32) 263, (xii. 54-57) 136, 
(xiii. 1-^) 135, (xiY. 28-31) 
136, (xvi. 15-18) 54, (xvi. 
16) 57, (xvi. 18) 79, (xvi. 

31) 147, (xviii. 33) 145, (xx. 
43) 98, (xxii. 67), 163; John 
(i. 9-12) 171, (i. 17) 245, 
(iii. 5, 6, 7) 125, (iii. 19-21) 
171, (iii. 14-17) 125, (v. 39) 
150, (v. 44) 164, (vi. 30) 163, 
(vii. 18) 164, (vii. 19) 57, 
(viii. 17) 57, (viii. 28) 125, 
258, (viii. 32) 258, (viii. 35) 
141, (viii. 40) 171, (viii. 46) 

171, (x. 25, 26) 163, (xi. 19- 
22) 145, (xii. 31) 244, (xii. 35) 
125, (xiv. 6) 172, (xiv. 16, 17) 

172, (xiv. 27) 109, (xv, 25) 57, 
(xvi. 33) 244, (xviii. 37) 172, 
(xix. 7) 57; Acts (vii. 27) 
98, (xxiii. 8) 143; Rom. (i. 
32, ii. 1, ii. 4) 31; Cor. (I. vii. 
1-11) 80, (I. XV. 2) 75; Heb. 
(ii. 2) 115; Jas. (ii. 12, 13) 
30, (ii. 13) 29, (ii. 14-26) 163, 
(iv. 11, 12) 28, (v. 6) 35, (v. 
12) 89; John (I. v. 3) 14, (I. 
v. 4) 244. 

Borovitzky Gate, 19. 



Brahmins, 173, 218. 

Buddha, 134, 218. 

Buddhism, 124. 

Catechism analyzed, 213. 

Children, education of, 105. 

Christian rationalists in Rus- 
sia, 223. 

Christianity, substance of, 2, 
13; a spiritual tendency, 4; 
lack of ethical and moral 
instruction in, 123. 

Christians may believe in Je- 
sus, 241; duties of, 258 et 
seq. 

Chrysostom, xi., 33, 63 et 
seq.: 79, 92. 

Church, the fathers of, 31, 81, 
93; the Orthodox, 2; creed 
of, 265; inadequacy of 3, 4, 
175, 209-244; teachings of, 
4, 40, 47, 58, 62. 107, 115, 127, 
154, 178, 213-217, 227; com- 
pulsory in Russia, 216; the 
true, 262. 

Churches, as useless sentinels, 
224. 

Civilization, characteristics of, 
42, 233. 

Clement, x. 

Commandments, abrogated by 
the Church, 214. 

Commentators, pseudo-Chris- 
tian, 91; liberal, 93. 

condkmnare, 34. 

Confucius, 124, 126, 127, 218. 

Constantine, 31, 219. 

Cosmopolitanism, importance 
of, 257. 

Daniel, apocryphal book of, 
149. 



INDEX. 



271 



Death, inevitable, 137, 138, 

139. 
Death penalty, sanctioned by 

the Church, 221. 
Debauchery, 77 et seq.; Paul's 

idea of, 80; destructive of 

happiness, 249; temptations 

to, 251. 
Devotion, a pagan book of, 

212. 
Divorce, denounced by Jesus, 

78 et seq.; sanctioned by the 

Church, 221. 
5o|a, meaning of, 1G4. 
dyeipo), meaning of, 146. 
ehehruch, meaning of, 84. 
€tK^, meaning and textual au- 
thenticity of, 75. 
Elijah, 48, 145. 
7]\iKlav, meaning of, 137. 
Enemy, love for, 95 et seq.; 

meaning of, 98. 
Epictetus, 89, 126, 127. 
Error, temptation of Jesus by, 

178; the cohesive power of, 

262. 
Esdras, 56. 
Evil, submission to, 8 et seq., 

13, 92-94; resistance to, 15; 

destructive of happiness, 

253; to speak, 28, 32. 
Existence, its futilities, 226. 
Faith, defined, 115, 162, 166, 

244; and works, 160, 169; 

based on the dictates of rea- 
son, 170; source of, 171; the 

false, 173. 
Fall, dogma of the, 120, 153. 
Family, the, a condition of 

happiness, 187. 



Foreigners, hostility toward, 
100; destructive of happi- 
ness, 255. 

Formalism, evils of, 68. 

fornicatio, meaning of, 83. 

Free-will, an illusion, 124. 

French war of 1870, 198. 

Galilee, 41, 44, 48, 49, 178. 

Galileans, massacre of, 135. 

Germans, 45, 259. 

Ghengis Khan, 36. 

God, service of, 21 ; appears to 
Elijah, 48; commandments 
of, 51; kingdom of, 108, 111, 
160; how brought, 209. 

Gospels, exegesis, 1, 55, 75. 

Griesbach, 175. 

Happiness, conditions of, 185- 
189. 

hayai leolam, meaning of, 148. 

Health, a condition of happi- 
ness, 189. 

Hebrews, 176. 

Hegelianism, 122. 

Herod, 25, 146. 

High Priests, 25, 59. 

Householder, parable of, 168. 

hurerei. meaning of, 83. 

Husbandmen, parable of, 139. 

Immortality, belief in, 147, 
150, 153, 155. 

Irenseus, 62. 

Isaiah, 56, 61. 

James, 167. 

Jesus, as the " charmant doc- 
teur," 41 ; divinity of, 15; 
the enemies of, 60; his use 
of the Mosaic law, 67; com- 
mandments of, 69, 76, 86, 
194, 242, 246 et seq.; mission 



272 



INDEX. 



of, 108; the Messiah, 111, 
145, 158; his revelation of 
the true life, 139; his doc- 
trine of eternal life, 153; as 
a Saviour, 158; his definition 
of belief, 161; of true life, 
167; his temptation in the 
wilderness, 177; offers the 
water of truth, 196. 
Jesus, doctrine of, its simplic- 
ity, vi., 6, 7, 11, 12, 69, 194; 
as a metaphysical theory 
and an ethical system, 218, 
231 ; a doctrine of grace and 
truth, 246; practical results 
of, 107; key to, 2, 16, 17; 
requirements of, 248; its 
meaning, 7, 43, 50, 58, 108, 
172, 193, 199, 240; its re- 
wards, 179, 202; to bring the 
kingdom of God, 209; its 
relation to the Church, 209- 
244; its adaptability to Chris- 
tians, 241; to the philoso- 
pher, 242; to the " average " 
man, 243; difficulty in obey- 
ing, 14, 16, 112, 132, 160, 173, 
194, 259; belief in, 160 et 
seq.; requirements of, 245 
et seq.; a protest against 
ceremonial, 219 ; its conceal- 
ment, 49, 68, 90, 173, 174; 
and military regulations, 19, 
22, 104, 223 ; its universality, 
241; delusions with regard 
to, 23, 101, 114, 191 et seq., 
204; will overcome the 
world, 244; substance of, 
124; and social customs, 58, 



90, 93, 133, 194; where are 
its martyrs ? 195. 

Jews, criminal law of, 27. 

John, 167. 

John the Baptist, 43, 54, 108, 
135, 145, 146. 

Jonah, 146; story of, 176. 

Judaism, 124, 220. 

Judgment, parable of the last, 
139, 152. 

Laborer, worthy of his suste- 
nance, 200, 205; rewards of, 
201, 203. 

Law, the eternal, 53, 55. 

Law of struggle, 47, 181, 197. 

Lazarus, 147. 

lihertinage, meaning of, 83, 

Libertinism, 83, 85. 

Liberty, law of, 29. 

Life, essence of, 118, 138, 165; 
the personal, 134, 139, 174; 
salvation of, 152, 165; re- 
nunciation of, 141, 142; the 
eternal, 143; how perpetu- 
ated, 150; rewards of, 167; 
doctrine of, enforced by the 
police, 232. 

Loaves and fishes, lesson of 
the, 206. 

Luke, 34, 54, 55, 80. 

Luther, 34, 84. 

Manu, laws of, 89. 

:Mark, 80. 

Martyrs, Christian, number of, 
192. 

Martyrs to the world, 183, 193. 

Materialism, 122. 

Men, brotherhood of, 110, 246, 
256; intercourse with, essen- 
tial to happiness, 188; nature 



INDEX. 



273 



of, 112; debt to the past, 141; 

mutual dependence, 207 ; 

temptations against, 246. 
fierduoia, meaning of, 135, 141. 
Michael, Archbishop, 93. 
Military regulations, 19. 
fjLoixdo'dai, meaning of, 83. 
Monasticism, contrary to the 

doctrine of Jesus, 176. 
Monogamy the natural law of 

humanity, 250. 
Moscow, 183. 
Mount, the Sermon on the, 5, 

6, 10, 11, 17, 26, 78, 79, 108. 
Miiller, Max, 148. 
Nationality, renunciation of, 

257. 
Nature, the law of, 46; com- 
munion with, essential to 

happiness, 185. 
Neighbor, meaning of, 97 et 

seq. 
Nicodemus, 60, 108, 125. 
vofxos, meaning of, 56. 
Oaths, the commandment a- 

gainst, 87 et seq. ; destruc- 
tion of happiness, 252; evils 

of, 252. 
Origen, 102. 
Pascal, 134. 
Paul, X., 30, 56, 80, 88, 115 ; 

his metaphysico-cabalistic 

doctrine, 219. 
Peace, the reign of, 108; how 

violated, 109. 
Penalty, the death, 36. 
Pentateuch, 57, 148. 
Persons, respect of, 29. 
Pessimism, 122. 
Peter, 11, 145, 167, 168, 180. 



Pharisees, 54, 59, 60, 85, 88, 
143, 178. 

Philosophers, and the problem 
of existence, 229. 

Pilate, 135, 175. 

TTopveia, meaning of, 83 et seq. 

Poverty, the blessings of, 199; 
indispensable to the follower 
of Jesus, 200. 

prissaiaga, meaning of, 85. 

Prophets, the Hebrew, 43, 57, 
143. 

qum, meaning of, 146. 

raca, meaning of, 73, 76. 

Reason, authority of, 124. 

Redemption, dogma of, 120, 
122, 153. 

Religions, requirements of, 220. 

Renan, 31, 93. 

Repentance, 60; necessity of, 
135. 

Resurrection, not taught by 
Jesus, 143. 

resusciter, meaning of, 146. 

Reuss, 79. 

Revolution, the French, 36. 

Revolutionists, atheistic, 39; 
Christian, 39. 

Riches, the struggle for, 184. 

Righteousness, progress to- 
ward, 48. 

Sadducees, 60, 143. 

Samaritan, 98. 

Sanhedrim, 25. 

Schopenhauer, 148. 

Science, hostile to the Church, 
223. 

Security, struggle for, its futil- 
ity, 198. 

Seneca, 89. 



274 



INDEX. 



Sisyphus, labor of, 184. 

Slave, 39. 

Slavery, sanctioned by the 
Church, 221. 

Slavophile, 39. 

Socrates, 124, 126. 

Soldier, at Borovitzky Gate, 
19, 88; Russian nickname 
for, 88. 

Solomon, 134. 

Son of man, doctrine regard- 
ing, 125 et seq. ; 142, 150, 152, 
156, 263. 

Spirit, the Holy, 68. 

Spiritism, 123. 

State, service of, 21, 22, 257; 
independent of the Church, 
223. 

States, divisions into, a barba- 
rism, 107. 

Stoics, 124, 173. 

Strauss, 41, 93. 

Suffering, useless, 183. 

Sukhareff Tower, 183. 

Talents, parable of the, 142. 

Talmud, 17, 56, 143, 173. 

Theologians, declarations of, 6. 

Theophylact, 33. 

Thief, on the cross, vii. 

Tiele, 148. 

Tischendorf, 55, 75. 

Tohu, 18, 19, 21, 22, 42, 43. 

Torah, 56, 61, 68. 

Tribunals, 23, 24; contrary to 



law of Jesus, 25 et seq.; 
sanctioned by the Church, 
221. 

Trinity, 14, 40, 58, 116, 117, 
127. 

Truth, Christian, 4. 

Tiibingen, school of, 33. 

Turks, 259. 

verdammen, meaning of, 34. 

Violence, renunciation of, 38; 
organized, 45, 196; destruc- 
tive to happiness, 253; temp- 
tations to, 254; futility of, 
259 etseq. 

Virgins, parable of, 139. 

voskresnovit, meaning of, 146. 

Vulgate, 34. 

War, organized murder, 101, 
192 ; justified by the Church, 
211, 221, 

Wars of our century, victims 
of, 193. 

Work, an inevitable condition 
of happiness, 186, 201, 205, 
207. 

World, the doctrine of, illus- 
trated, 129; sufferings for, 
181, 185-192; its commands, 
191; its necessities, 184 et 
seq.; justification of, 188; 
its relation to the Church, 
221 et seq. 

Worldly advantage, 11. 

zanah, meaning of, 83. 



5 91 



f 




1 



^^^'* ' ' '^y:iL:^''% 



.-^^ ," 



^>^v^^ 



.0 0, 












-V -5^ 



0^ -'« 



«>■■'« 



% 



i. 



vV ^-^^^ 



■:^^m 



W^s J 



^■^ 



.^^ 






v^' 



^<^^ 






' a''"'.'-: 



t/> \^ 






/% VV^N^^^- ^^\\^^ 









j.-^ -^c*-. 




.A^- 



<^. -i' s 



,.^^ 






-'^.;- 



.^'^^■ -^z 



^A > 



x\^ 



'"^^ ■' Deacidified using the Bookkeeper proces 
'' / *?j> Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: April 2005 

PreservationTechnologiffi 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATIO 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township. PA 16066 
(724) 779-21 1 1 



^ <^ 















^ -^^' 

-.\*-^ 



C^ '^'i^. 






.^■^ ''■^^ 



<^^, 









/:■ 





















v^' '*^ V 






